Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer Review result: Has Nits Summary: document has non-security related nits. Details * The definition of "segment" is different here from the one used in the architecture RFC. The RFC is more abstract, quoting: A node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called "segments". Whereas here a segment is simply a sub-path. This is confusing to a non-expert, and perhaps indicates a change in the group's thinking. * SID/Label Sub-TLV: is it Mandatory? If so, please point it out. * "The SR-Algorithm TLV is optional" - I find this sentence confusing. Maybe replace by "The SR-Algorithm TLV is mandatory for routers that implement segment routing"? * The reference under "IGP Algorithm Type" registry should be to the IANA registry itself, not to the I-D that defines it. (In particular since the IANA registry has already been established, https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-algorithm-types). * OSPFv3 Extended Prefix Range TLV Flags octet: add the usual incantation about reserved bits. * In general I agree with the reasoning in the Security Considerations. I would like to raise the question if, in addition to mis-routing, this adds a threat of massive denial-of-service on MPLS endpoints, e.g. by allowing an attacker who has OSPF access to introduce routing loops. (This may be completely bogus, I am far from expert with either of these protocols).
