[Idr] Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-15: (with COMMENT)

["Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Eric,

Thank you for your review.

I have posted a new rev (v-16) which I hope addresses most of your comments. Please also see inline (DR#) for responses.


From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, February 20, 2025 at 6:43 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <[e-mail]>, luay.jalil <[e-mail]>, yitai.syc <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, im8327 <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-15: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-15: No Objection

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-car/



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-15
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. Due to time constraints, I have
only browsed this document, sorry about this light review.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Sue Hares for the shepherd's very detailed write-up including
the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status, it is also
quite old, i.e., I wonder whether things have changed since April 2024.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 1

The letter "E" is used, but I failed to see its definition. Same for "E2" in
section 1.1. Even saying 'E' = edge would help.
DR# Added an Abbreviation entry for ‘E’.

### Section 1.1

Unsure how to read `Where the network uses SRv6, the operators have agreed to
trust each other's specification of SRv6 SIDs.` In the case of multiple
operators, I would assume that *all* transport (bein plain IP or SR MPLS or
SRv6) relies on a trust relationship. Unsure what is a specification of SRv6
SIDs, suggest using "allocation" ?

DR# Have edited this statement; please check.

### Section 2.5

Should a reference be added for SRv6 Flex Algo ? Same later for "TEA".

DR# They are referenced earlier in Terminology and Abbreviations.

### Section 2.9.2.1 (and possible other places)

Even if somehow obvious, please state the unit for the Length field.

DR# Added.

### Section 2.9.2.3

s/a stack of 128-bit SRv6 SIDs/an ordered list of 128-bit SRv6 SIDs/ ? SRH is
not about 'stack' of labels.

DR# Fixed.

## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate
SVG graphics. It is worth a try ;-)

DR# Couldn’t spend time on this.

Regards,
-Dhananjaya