[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02

Stig Venaas via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sat, 02 March 2024 00:09 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stig Venaas via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext.all@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <170933816446.22739.15896636640990291082@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 16:09:24 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Hunx3XVVUkfoGfI8_GXuapzU6es>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sr-segtypes-ext-02

Reviewer: Stig Venaas
Review result: Ready

I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready.

I only found one minor nit when reviewing.

In section 2 it says:
   As specified in section 2.4.4.2 of [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi], the
   Segment Type Sub-TLVs specified in this document are also used only
   by the SRPM [I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi] as described in section 4
   of [RFC9256] on the same lines as segment types A and B.  Their
   validation is, therefore, beyond the scope of BGP.

SRPM should be spelled out when first used.
Not sure what is meant by "on the same lines", should it be "along the same lines"?

[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-b… Stig Venaas via Datatracker
Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-i… Ketan Talaulikar
Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-i… Ketan Talaulikar