> On Nov 3, 2024, at 6:13 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Following up on this thread to share the proposed updates for a > further/related comment raised on the related document > draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi : > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/i1ema3XObVS79DaWhmYEu9sr9WI/ > > Thanks, > Ketan > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 12:58 PM Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Russ, >> >> Thanks for your review of the document and your comments/suggestions. >> >> Since the submission window is currently closed, I've attached the >> updated draft along with the diff for the changes. Please let me know >> if you have any follow up questions. >> >> Also, check inline below for responses >> >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 8:32 PM Russ Housley via Datatracker >> <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Reviewer: Russ Housley >>> Review result: Almost Ready >>> >>> 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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-05 >>> Reviewer: Russ Housley >>> Review Date: 2024-10-25 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2024-11-11 >>> IESG Telechat date: Unknown >>> >>> >>> Summary: Almost Ready >>> >>> >>> Major Concerns: >>> >>> Section 2.10: The text says: >>> >>> The Segment Types sub-TLVs described above may contain the following >>> flags in the "Segment Flags" field defined in ... >>> >>> In Table 8 of [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi], these are called "SR Policy >>> Segment Flags". In the nine previous sections, the field is just >>> labeled "Flags". Please add some words to clarify. >> >> KT> Fixed in both this document and the draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi. >> Note that I've kept the name "Flags" for the field in the picture due >> to space constraints. I suspected the figures would continue to use "Flags". I was just expecting words that let th reader know that the two are the same thing. >> >>> >>> Section 4: I suggest a rewrite: >>> >>> The security considerations in [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] apply >>> to the new segment types defined in this document. No additional >>> security considerations are introduced in this document. >> >> KT> Thanks. I've incorporated your suggestion. Thanks. >> >>> >>> Section 5: Please consider something similar to the proposed rewrite >>> for Section 4. >>> >> >> KT> Done. Okay. >> >>> >>> Minor Concerns: >>> >>> Section 2.8 and Section 2.9: The SRv6 SID and the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior >>> and SID Structure are both optional. I do not see how a receiver could >>> determine when the SRv6 SID is absent and the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and >>> SID Structure is present. I suspect that this is not allowed, but the >>> text does not make this clear. Please clarify. >>> >> >> KT> Indeed. Have clarified the same. Also did the same in >> draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi I assume that the SRv6 Endpoint Behavior and SID Structure is omitted unless the The SRv6 SID is present. >> >>> >>> Nits: >>> >>> Abstract and Introduction: Please spell out "BGP SR Policy SAFI" on >>> the first occurrence. >>> >>> Section 2.3: s/present else/present, else/ >>> >>> Section 2.4: s/present else/present, else/ >>> >>> Section 2.5: s/present else/present, else/ >>> >>> Section 2.6: s/present else/present, else/ >>> >> >> KT> Fixed all of them. Okay. Russ -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
