Reviewer: Ron Bonica Review result: Not Ready I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-bess-srv6-services.txt. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>. Major issues: 1) In Section 3.2.1, the draft transposes bits into the MPLS Label field. This is surprising because MPLS appears nowhere in the forwarding plane. Maybe we shouldn't advertise an MPLS label? 2) In Section 3.2.1 the draft says: BGP speakers that do not support this specification may misinterpret, on the reception of an SRv6-based BGP service route update, the part of the SRv6 SID encoded in MPLS label field(s) as MPLS label values for MPLS-based services. Implementations supporting this specification SHOULD provide a mechanism to control the advertisement of SRv6-based BGP service routes on a per-neighbor and per-service basis. The details of deployment designs and implementation options are outside the scope of this document. s/BGP speakers that do not support this specification/Legacy BGP implementations It seems that this isn't backwards compatible unless either: - the SHOULD becomes a MUST - the mechanism is described in this document 3) I concur with Warren Kumari's DISCUSS -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
