Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-10
review-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-10-rtgdir-lc-robles-2022-11-14-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 19) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2022-11-14 | |
Requested | 2022-10-26 | |
Requested by | Jim Guichard | |
Authors | Daniel Voyer , Clarence Filsfils , Rishabh Parekh , Hooman Bidgoli , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang | |
I-D last updated | 2022-11-14 | |
Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -14
by Sarah Banks
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Thomas Fossati (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -14 by Wesley Eddy (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Mohit Sethi (diff) Rtgdir Last Call review of -10 by Ines Robles (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Ines Robles |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/VFre2vH5mwvySL_c-wqZsQkF7kI | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 19) | |
Result | Has issues | |
Completed | 2022-11-14 |
review-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-10-rtgdir-lc-robles-2022-11-14-00
I am the assigned Rtg reviewer for this draft. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Document: draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-10 Reviewer: Ines Robles Review Date: 2022-11-14 Summary: This document (with intended status Standards Track) describes the SR (Segment Routing) Replication segment for Multi-point service delivery. A SR Replication segment allows a packet to be replicated from a Replication Node to Downstream nodes. The document mention two implementations. An example is described in Appendix A. Major issues: None Minor issues: 1- Requirements Language section should add RFC 8174, i.e. "...."NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here." 2- There is no terminology section. It would be nice to have a terminology section where inform to the reader which document to read to understand the terminology not defined in the document e.g. "..the operations NEXT, PUSH are defined in RFC8402 and the POP operation in RFC...; H.Encaps.Red is defined in ....." 3- Page 3: "Replication-ID can be a 32-bit number, but it can be extended or modified as required... " -> to which limit can be extended? 4- Question: since the replication state of the nodes can change over time. Is it possible that in some particular circumstances this change could trigger a loop in the replication segment? or this is not possible? 5- The security considerations states: "There are no additional security risks introduced by this design". Additional to what features? This is not clear to me. Perhaps it would be nice to rephrase it to something like: "The security considerations outlined in RFC 8402, RCF... also applies to this document"? Nits/editorial comments: 6- Page 7: all the Must and SHOULD... => all the MUST and SHOULD? 7- Page 11- Figure 1: It would be nice if the caption of the figure could be descriptive 8- Page 13 Paragraph 8 and 9: End.Replcate => End.Replicate? Thanks for this document, Ines.