[Idr] Shepherd's report on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-03 (7/30/2024)

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Ketan:

One fix needs to be imported from draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-06.txt.  In this case, I think the last two sentences will help people extending the

Please change the following text in section 2.0:

Current text:/
   As specified in section 2.4.4.2 of [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi], the
   Segment Type Sub-TLVs specified in this document are also used only
   by the Segment Routing Policy Module (SRPM)
   [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] as described in section 4 of [RFC9256].
   Their validation is, therefore, beyond the scope of BGP./

New text:/
   As specified in sections 2.4.4 and 2.4.4.2 of [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi],
   validation of an explicit path encoded by the Segment List sub-TLV is
   beyond the scope of BGP and performed by the SRPM as described in
   section 5 of [RFC9256].   As specified in section 5.1 of
   [RFC9256], a mix of SR-MPLS and SRv6 segments make the segment-list
   invalid.  SR-MPLS segment types include: A, C, D, E, F, G, and H.
   SRv6 segment types include: B, I, J, and K./

 Why: 1) 1st two sentences match draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-06.txt.
      2) Last two sentences, will help those defining new segments to have a pattern for definition.

Due to Section 2.10, I think the inclusion of the list of SR-MPLS versus SRv6 segment types would help the reader.

Nits - when you rebuild the text, the only NIT (previous version of draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-06.

I think the shepherd write-up is done. I just need this change.

Cheers, Sue