[Idr] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-06: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-epe-over-l2bundle-06
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some
non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for
my own education).

Special thanks to Sue Hares for the shepherd's write-up.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of
https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by
a tool to create github issues.

## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/,
a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I
really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be
convinced otherwise.

### Section 3

Why not a MUST in `If so, it SHOULD advertise the Peer Adjacency Segments of
bundle members in BGP-LS` ? There is condition to the MUST. Else, provide
guidance of the effect of bypassing the SHOULD.

See also:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/

### Unbalancing the L2 bundle ?

I failed to find an operational consideration about the potential load
unbalance when select specific bundle members, I am afraid that this could lead
to overloaded bundle members. Please add some considerations on this issue (or
explain why it is not an issue).

Moreover, if some packets of the flow happen to have different policies, then
the packer ordering within a flow can be broken. As I am not a SR expert, this
kind of policies may be impossible though.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 1

s/This document describes/This document *specifies*/ as it is PS.

## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

### Layer-2 vs. Layer 2

As English is not my primary language, I learned it at school and my grammar
says to use "layer-2 interface" rather than the "Layer 2 interface" (i.e.,
hyphen and lowercase)...

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg tool to generate
SVG graphics. It is worth a try especially if the I-D uses the Kramdown file
format ;-)