Hey Andrew, Thanks a lot for your review. Addressed the minor comments in the latest revision.
Cheers, Gaurav From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agma...@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 4:05 PM To: "<rtg-...@ietf.org>" <rtg-...@ietf.org> Cc: "rtg-...@ietf.org" <rtg-...@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe....@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe....@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org> Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-07.txt Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-central-epe-07.txt Reviewer: Andy Malis Review Date: 7 December 2017 IETF LC End Date: 30 November 2017 Intended Status: Informational Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: This document very usefully demonstrates how Segment Routing can be used to provide BGP Egress Peer Engineering through the use of a centralized controller. It has been through a number of reviews, so it is overall in good shape for publication. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: 1. This document is Informational, as it doesn't define any new protocol elements or contain any new actions for IANA. However, it does make use of RFC 2119 language. Alvaro Retana has already commented on this usage, and I would like to add that especially in an Informational document, the use of RFC 2119 language should be minimal and strictly used only to ensure interoperability (see section 6 of RFC 2119). In particular, I don't agree with the use of the uppercase MUST in the second paragraph of section 9, which is imposing a requirement on an operator. This paragraph is simply a rephrasing of section 9 in draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe. I would much prefer a simple reference to that section in draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe rather than a restatement of that text in this document. That will also ensure that if the text in draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe should change (as that draft is still in progress), it would not require an update of this document to match. 2. I think that it would be useful to move section 7 higher in the document, perhaps as section 1.2. 3. I also note that the comments made by Alvaro in his email of November 3 have not yet been addressed. I agree with his comments, and request that they be addressed prior to publication. Nits: None.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
