[Idr] shepherd review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-02 (expired draft)

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Ketan, Gaurav, Clarence, Francois, Daniel, Jim, Bruno, Hani, Xiaohu, Jim, and Cheng:

Attached below is a a shepherd report for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-02.txt.
This shepherd's review is at a high-level because so much of this draft is out of date.

Are you interested in continuing to work on this draft?

If so, I need either 5 authors or 2 editors selected for this draft.
Please publish -03.txt with the issues below fixed and
5 authors or 2 editors on the main page.

You can put all of the authors on a back-page and submit the authors.

Cheerily, Sue Hares





Shepherd Review for: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-service-segments-02

status: WG Draft (last publication 11/22/2022), expired
version: Needs update
early allocation: Needed for BGP-LS TLV type
a) Service Chaining (SC) TLV
b) Opaque Metadata (OM) TLV



Technical:
Issue-1: Please update to most recent RFCs and drafts

[RFC7752] should be replaced with [RFC9552]
[draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-srv6-ext] should be updated to [RFC9514]
[draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] should be updated to the appropriate drafts.


Issue-2: Section 2, Who classifies the Service Type (ST) into the 16 bit field?
Is this IANA  or the operator? Please clarify how this value is
derived or pulled from an IANA source.

Issue-3: Section 2, Traffic Type

Please indicate
1. What the "0" settings for these bits mean. (e.g. IPv4 incapable)
2. Please indicate that the non-used bits are set to zero upon transmission and
   ignored upon reception.


Issue-4: Section 2, Opaque Metadata (OM) TLV

Error handling needs to be specified for the opaque data.
What constitutes a length error?
Can there be proprietary malformed fields or not?

Issue-5, Please update the illustration in section 3 to
reference appropriate current IDR drafts.

Issue-6: Please upgrade the manageability section

Please deal with the issues in malformed opaque data.

Issue-7: Upgrade the Security section

Service segments are critical pieces of infrastructure.
Consider a write-up that indicates these critical
pieces of infrastructure need to be protected.
For examples, see [draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi]
for BGP-LS examples see [draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy]


Editorial:

Nit-1: Section 1, paragraph 4, starting with "however,

old text:/
   However, if SR-C is configured to compute a constrained path from 1
   and 6, including a DPI service (i.e., S2) it is not yet possible due
   to the lack of service distribution.  SR-C does not know where a DPI
   service is nor the SID for it. /

New text:/
   However, if SR-C is configured to compute a constrained path from 1
   and 6, including a DPI service (i.e., S2) it is not yet possible due
   to the lack of information about service distribution.  SR-C does
   not know where a DPI service is nor the SID for it.  It does not
   know that S2 is a service it needs.