[Idr] Re: Shepherd reviews draft-ietf-idr-sr-te-policy-attr-02

[[e-mail]]

Hi Sue,

Thanks a lot for the detailed shepherd review. I've just submitted v-03 to address the comments, i.e, Review-02, Issue-1.
And about the implementations mentioned in the shepherd review, there might be a mistake. Currently it is an experimental document without implementation, as mentioned in section 6 of it.

Best Regards,
Yao





Original


From: SusanHares <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2025年07月14日 06:21
Subject: [Idr] Shepherd reviews draft-ietf-idr-sr-te-policy-attr-02

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
 

Shepherd reviews draft-ietf-idr-sr-te-policy-attr-02
Summary
draft: draft-ietf-idr-sr-te-policy-attr
 Type: Proposed Standard
 status: WG Draft
 adopted: 8/12/2024 (adoption call: 7/12/2024 - 7/30/2024)
 current version: 02
 Early Allocation: -03 required prior to Early Allocation request
 implementations: H3C and ZTE (2 implementations)
 bgp-ls draft: would need to augment deraft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy
 
Review -02
Reviewer: Susan Hares
 draft: draft-ietf-idr-sr--te-policy-attr-02
Status of Technical issues from -01 Review
Review-01, Issue-1: Resolved in section 1 in the following text:
BGP UPDATE message
 sends the NLRI that identifies an SR Policy Candidate Path, and the
 attributes that encode the segment lists and other details of that SR
 Policy Candidate Path. These BGP attributes include the Tunnel
 Encapsulation Attribute [RFC9012] with the SR Policy Tunnel-Type, and
 it encodes SR Policy tunnel information (per
 [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi]).
Review-01, Issue-2: Resolved in section with the text:
This section defines four new Segment types and the corresponding
 Segment Sub-TLVs of Segment List Sub-TLV to provide algorithm
 information for SR-MPLS Adjacency-SIDs. The Segment Sub-TLVs in this
 document are only defined for the Segment list Sub-TLV used by the
 Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute with the SR Policy Tunnel-Type as per
 [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi]. All other usages are outside the
 scope of this document.
review-01, Issue-3: Resolved by the text in section 3 of:
The processing procedures for SID with algorithm specified in
[RFC9256] and [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext] are still applicable
 for the new segment types. Just as in [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi],
 the segment list sub-TLVs specified in this document (sections 3.1,
 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4) MAY repeat multiple times within the segment-list
 Sub-TLV. BGP only checks the syntax of the fields, but the semantic
 meaning is check by the consumer. When the algorithm is not
 specified for the SID types above which optionally allow for it, the
 headend SHOULD use the Strict Shortest Path algorithm if available;
 otherwise, it SHOULD use the default Shortest Path algorithm.
review-01, Issue-4 - resolved with the inclusion of section 6
 
The following needs to be corrected prior to early allocation for this draft:  
Review-02, Issue-1 - Security section needs to describe critical information
The information in segment types L-O are critical pieces of information about the infrastructure of a network or multiple network segments. The Security section needs to mention that the operators need to carefully restrict access to the information contained in segments L-O. A list of the unique information is useful in this section.