[Last-Call] RtgDir Last Call review: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-14

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello,

 

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.

The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related

drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and

sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide

assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing

Directorate, please see

​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

 

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it

would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF

Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through

discussion or by updating the draft.

 

Document: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-14

Reviewer: Matthew Bocci

Review Date: 28 January 2022

Intended Status: Standards Track

 

Summary:

 

In general, this is a well written document. Thank you.

 

However, I have some minor concerns about this

document that I think should be resolved before publication. This mostly revolve around

the clarity of the document and the use (or lack thereof) of RFC2119 language.

 

Comments:

 

Major Issues: No major issues found

 

Minor Issues:

 

1) This is a standards track document, but in general I found that clear specification language

is missing. For example, in section 2.3: "A headend may be.." Should this be "A headend MAY be..."?

There are many other cases like this where MUST/SHOULD/MAY would be better used rather than

'is' or 'can'.

 

2) The references to control planes for provisioning and maintaining SR Policies are only

informational, but they are referred to in a manner in the text that I read as normative

(although the language is not always clear). For example, in section 2.5: "When signaling

is via PCEP..." and then the paragraph refers to an informative reference to the

PCE draft for the SR policy control plane. Given that this is a standards track architecture

document, it would be much better to be clear about what the normative parts of the

architecture are. If these parts are not normative (for example even if I use BGP it is not

mandatory to use it according to a particular specification) then please be explicit

and use 'MAY' or 'SHOULD'.

 

3) Section 2.2: Candidate Path and Segment List. This section describes a hierarchical

relationship between composite candidate paths, SR Policies, candidate paths, and segment lists.

It would be much clearer if you could provide a diagram illustrating this hierarchy.

 

3) Terminology section. Since this draft

is really the overall guide to all things SR Policy, it would really help to include a

terminology section summarising  new terms and acronyms.

 

 

Nits:

 

1) The definite/indefinite article ('the', 'a', etc) is missing from the text in many places.

I would suggest going through the text carefully and correcting these issues.

 

2) Section 2.13:

 

In the information model:

 

SR policy POL1 <headend = H1, color = 1, endpoint = E1>

        Candidate-path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =

   100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1>

             Preference 200

             Priority 10

             Weight W1, SID-List1 <SID11...SID1i>

             Weight W2, SID-List2 <SID21...SID2j>

                        ^^^^^^^^^

                       

These are referred to as segment lists in the main text, so maybe you should align the

terminology.

 

Section 4: Segment Types.

Type A: SR-MPLS Label: "...Additionally, reserved labels..." These are now commonly

referred to in MPLS as "special purpose labels".

 

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux