[Idr] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-05

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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
> <[e-mail]> 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.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> >
> > Section 5:  Please consider something similar to the proposed rewrite
> > for Section 4.
> >
>
> KT> Done.
>
> >
> > 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
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
> >
> >