Subject: [spring] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-16

From: Carlos Bernardos via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2022 13:23:45 -0800

Reviewer: Carlos Bernardos
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy. These comments were written primarily
for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and
shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments
from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last
Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate,
see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

The document is very well written and I just have a couple of small comments.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO
OBJECTION.

The following are other issues I found with this document that SHOULD be
corrected before publication:

Section 3 makes use of a lot of potentially normative “may” which is not clear
if they are meant to be normative or not.

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
with the document:

In section 3, when describing the SR-DB, two IGP protocols are mentioned (ISIS
and OSPF). Are those the only ones meant to be supported?

“with the End behavior (as defined in [RFC8986]), of the node” —> I think the
“,” should be removed

---

From: Ketan Talaulikar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:34:35 +0530

Hi Carlos,

Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses. We will
include these changes as part of the next update.

> if they are meant to be normative or not.

KT> The section 3 covers something that is implementation specific and
hence not normative. Previous versions of the document did carry the
normative MAYs which was later changed to "may" based on the WG inputs.

> and OSPF). Are those the only ones meant to be supported?

KT> Those are the "popular" IGPs and others are not precluded. That said, I
am not aware of the required SR extensions being available in others so as
to include/reference them here.

> “with the End behavior (as defined in [RFC8986]), of the node” —> I think

KT> Ack

Thanks,
Ketan

---

From: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 13:14:03 +0100

Thanks Ketan.

This is OK. Maybe an explicit note on Section 3 that it is not normative
might be good. But this is just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore it.

Thanks,

Carlos

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 7:04 AM Ketan Talaulikar <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Hi Carlos,
>
> Thanks for your review and please check inline below for responses. We
> will include these changes as part of the next update.
>
>
> KT> Those are the "popular" IGPs and others are not precluded. That said,
> I am not aware of the required SR extensions being available in others so
> as to include/reference them here.
>
>
>>

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:54:53 +0000

Hello Carlos,

Thank you again for your INT directorate review, it is always important to have multiple pairs of eyes when reviewing a document.

As you may have seen in the spring mailing list, I have relied heavily on your review.

¡Muchos gracias !

-éric

On 13/02/2022, 22:24, "Int-dir on behalf of Carlos Bernardos via Datatracker" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    _______________________________________________
    Int-dir mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir