[Lsr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions-24: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions/



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

A few comments/questions:

1) For both the Prefix Segment Identifier and the Adjacency Segment Identifier
sub-TLV it is not fully clear to me what the value field is used for when the
V-Flag is set. Can you further elaborate this in the draft or provide a
respective pointer?

2) The F-Flag in Adjacency Segment Identifier sub-TLV and SID/Label Binding TLV
is only one bit. I'm not expecting a new version of IP any time soon, however,
maybe completely different address families could be useful as well. Not sure
if only 1 bit is future-proof...?

3) Would it make sense to also discuss any risk of leaking information (e.g.
about the network topology) in the security consideration section?