[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-03

Jonathan Hardwick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 22 April 2024 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A310C16A128; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Jonathan Hardwick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6.all@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.10.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171380246448.18678.16324844545429780238@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Jonathan Hardwick <jonhardwick@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:14:24 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/uflZvL2qTzFm9x6B1vAp18IlkyM>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-03
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:14:24 -0000

Reviewer: Jonathan Hardwick
Review result: Has Nits

This is an Early Review, requested by the WG chair.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-03
Reviewer: Jon Hardwick
Review Date: March 22nd 2024
Intended Status: Experimental


This is a companion document to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.  It describes procedures
and encodings applicable to BGP-CT where the transport network supports SRv6. 
It also shows two different methods of implementing BGP-CT in a multi-domain
SRv6 network.

I have no major concerns about this document. I have a few comments / questions
/ nits, as follows.


S4 para 1 - "These are leveraged for BGP CT routes with SRv6 data plane."  The
meaning of this is unclear. Are you saying that these are the only endpoint
behaviours that can be used for BGP-CT? Is there a normative statement
(SHOULD/MUST) that you need to make, or is it just that these are the most
useful endpoint behaviours in this setting?

S4 para 3 – I don't think you need to say this sentence twice: “The BGP
Classful Transport route update for SRv6 MUST include an attribute containing
SRv6 SID information.”

S5 – This section, which comprises the bulk of the material in the document, is
a pair of detailed worked examples explaining options for configuring SRv6
networks.  Do we need to standardize these options?  If not, could they be in
an appendix (or a separate informational document)?  In any case, it would be
helpful to explain when each option would be applicable in an operator network
(why prefer one or the other?).

Acknowledgements section seems to have been block-copied from
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct :-)  The second paragraph does not seem relevant to