Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2022-04-29
Requested 2022-04-15
Authors Randy Bush , Rob Austein
I-D last updated 2022-04-28
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -06 by Michael Tüxen (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -06 by Mohamed Boucadair (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Bo Wu (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by Bo Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stewart Bryant
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2022-04-28
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-8210bis-06
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2022-04-28
IETF LC End Date: 2022-04-29
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: I read this from a GenArt perspective rather than a routing
perspective, and from that viewpoint the only issues that need addressing are
the matter of the obsolete RFCs that are called up without reference to their
status and any necessary mitigations. Once this matter is addressed the draft
is ready for publication.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
Nits fulls up three errors:

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2385 (Obsoleted by RFC 5925)
  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446)
  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 8208 (Obsoleted by RFC 8608)

The first is covered by an explanation in the text of the draft, but the other
two are not.

I am not sure what the right what the technology and deployment issues are in
moving the the newer RFCs, but there is not text as far as I can see noting the
obsolete nature of RFC5246 or RFC8208, nor any comment on their replacement by
RFC8446 and RFC8608 respectively.

Nits/editorial comments: None