Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11
review-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11-genart-lc-halpern-2018-05-14-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-05-24
Requested 2018-05-10
Authors Ahmed Bashandy , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Bruno Decraene , Stephane Litkowski
I-D last updated 2018-05-14
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -11 by Tomonori Takeda (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2018-05-14
review-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11-genart-lc-halpern-2018-05-14-00
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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-11
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2018-05-14
IETF LC End Date: 2018-05-24
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document appears to be ready for publication as an RFC.  The
question of whether it is an Informational RFC or a Proposed Standards track
RFC is one that the ADs should examine.

Major issues:
    This document is quite readable, and quite useful.  If my reading below
    (minor comment about section 4.2) is wrong, then everything is fine. 
    However, reading the text, it does not appear to define SRMS.  Rather, it
    describes a good way to use SRMS to achive smooth SR - LDP integration and
    migration.  As such, this seems to me to be a really good Informational
    Document.

Minor issues:
    Section 4.2 states that it defines the SRMS (Segment Routing Mapping
    Server).  Looking at the relevant routing protocol document, they point to
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-conflict-resolution-05 as the
    defining source for the SRMS.  And that document does appear to define the
    SRMS.

Nits/editorial comments: