[Idr] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi-09

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your review. Please check inline below for responses.

On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:24 PM Dan Romascanu via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> 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-sr-policy-safi-09
>
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 2024-11-06
> IETF LC End Date: 2024-11-11
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary:
>
> This document specifies how BGP may be used to distribute SR Policy candidate
> paths. It introduces a BGP SAFI to advertise a candidate path of a SR Policy
> and defines sub-TLVs for the Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute for signaling
> information about these candidate paths.It updates RFC9012.
>
> This document is Ready with two Minor Issues.
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>
> 1. Section 6.10 includes:
>
> >  Note to IANA (RFC editor to remove this before publication): The new
>    registry creation request below is also present in the draft-ietf-
>    pce-segment-routing-policy-cp.  IANA is requested to process the
>    registry creation via the first of these two documents to reach
>    publication stage and the authors of the other document would update
>    the IANA considerations suitably.
>
> As I understand, if this document reaches publication before
> draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp, Section 6.6 of the latest will be
> removed, and the opposite. However, the tables are not identical. In Table 10,
> Section 6.10 in this document values 5-255 are Unassigned, while in Section 6.6
> of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp values 5-255 are Reserved.

KT> We say "... and the authors of the other document would *update*
the IANA considerations suitably." - so we won't be removing section
6.6 of this document. We'll do what is correct/needful under guidance
from the IANA team. If there is a different/better way to deal with
such "race conditions", we are open to adapt.

>
> 2.The Manageability Considerations section refers to
> [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang] which is Expired.

KT> The authors of that document were reminded by the SPRING WG chairs
earlier this week. That document is a milestone deliverable for SPRING
WG and the expectation is that it will progress (soon).

Thanks,
Ketan

>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
>
>