[Pce] Chair's pre-adoption review of draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-06

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Authors,

In preparation for the upcoming WG adoption call, I did a quick review of your
I-D to tidy things up. At this stage we need to make sure that I-D is in good
enough state as a base of further work by the WG if adopted.

(1) 6 authors on the front page, better to handle this now itself, rather than
much later in the process.

(2) Add Implementation Status as per the WG policy. I assume there are
implementations of this work?

(3) Start work on the 'Manageability Considerations' section. Currently it is
marked TBD.

(4) This document includes details about reporting BSID for a path. What
happens when PCE creates a SR path (SR-ERO) that includes a BSID. This detail
is currently missing, we need to a clarity on how to encode a BSID in SR-ERO
and the best place is this document.

My guess would be to say no NAI in case of BSID in SR-ERO and confirm how the
flags should be set for both SR-MPLS and SRv6.

(5) Add reference to Section 6.4 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
for non-SR use of BSID.

(6) Why use 'label/SID' in this I-D? Please check in spring what would be the
best practice can it just be SID?

(7) Security Consideration is bit week. You have a way for PCE to assign BSID
and this needs to be analysed for potential exploitation.

(8) Update Section 6.1.1 to include SRv6

(9) Remove this sentence from section 1 - "However, use of this TLV for
carrying non-MPLS binding SID will be described in separate document(s)."; as
you support SRv6. Similarly, reword section 3, 2nd paragraph.

Note that these are non-blocking comments for WG adoption but it would be
great, if the authors publish a revision handling these.

Thanks!
Dhruv