Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-14
review-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-14-opsdir-lc-banks-2023-06-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2023-06-19
Requested 2023-06-05
Authors Daniel Voyer , Clarence Filsfils , Rishabh Parekh , Hooman Bidgoli , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang
I-D last updated 2023-06-19
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 Sarah Banks
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/zV39r1xHcbPlAZaz1kR2r_1DvaI
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 19)
Result Has issues
Completed 2023-06-19
review-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment-14-opsdir-lc-banks-2023-06-19-00
Hi,

Major issues: None
Minor issues:

I echo the sentiments of another reviewer with the security section; in
particular, are the security considerations cited in RFC8754 strong enough,
considering the replication of packets here? (It's OK if they are, but I wonder
if it's worth calling out in the doc that this was explicitly considered and
the authors landed at the same conclusion).

Readers not yet experts in SR would likely have a hard time distinguishing from
this draft which terms are net new in the document, versus those defined in
RFCs or other drafts; a clarifying terminology section would help, or
specifically citing terms to RFCs would help.

Thank you,
Sarah