Re: [mpls] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

That's a good review, Robert, thank you.

The changes look achievable to me, and I'm sure the author team can work to include them.

Cheers,
Adrian
--
Want to buy a signed copy of a book of fairy stories for adults of all ages?
Send me an email and I'll bring one to Prague for you.
"Tales from the Wood"
"More Tales from the Wood"
"Tales from Beyond the Wood"
https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Robert Sparks
Sent: 20 February 2019 15:48
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready with Nits

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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2019-02-20
IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-26
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready, but with nits that should be addressed before publication as a
Standards Track RFC

Nits

The 2nd sentence of the introduction is complex. It should be easy to simplify.

It would help to place the reference to draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy label at
"If encoding of entropy is desired". (Or if some other reference is better, use
that)

In that same paragraph, something is wrong at "make use of entropy label
mechanism." Should that be "the entropy label mechanism"?

SRGB is used without expansion.

Where is "the lower bound" of an SRGB defined? The string "lower bound" doesn't
occur in either of the routing-extensions drafts referenced where SRGB is first
used.

Section 3.1 is about ostensibly about constructing a FIB entry, but its last
step is sending a packet.

The first sentence in section 3.2 is more complex than it needs to be. It
should be easy to simplify.

It would be nice if you could make the differences between the routers in
figures 3 and 4 visually apparent rather than relying on text to explain the
difference. Something like (view in a fixed width font):

s-----s      i-----i
|  A  +------+  B  +--
s-----s      i--+--i
                |

At the first paragraph on page 9: s/and then process/and then processes/