BGP Prefix Segment in Large-Scale Data Centers
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-11

I spent a long time trying to understand the following text from section 2, where the sub-bullet appears to flatly contradict its parent bullet:

   o  Each node is its own AS (Node X has AS X). 4-byte AS numbers are
      recommended ([RFC6793]).

      *  For simple and efficient route propagation filtering, Node5,
         Node6, Node7 and Node8 use the same AS, Node3 and Node4 use the
         same AS, Node9 and Node10 use the same AS.

After a great deal of study of these and the following bullets, I convinced myself (perhaps incorrectly?) that the intention here is to say "We're going to talk about these nodes as if they each have their own AS, although in real deployments they'll probably be grouped together." Is that the intention? If so, it would be much easier to read if the sub-bullet made this clearer.

OPS DIR review from Tina:

I found this document well written to be READY for publication as an
informational document.

Some nits:

4.2 eBGP Labeled Unicast (RFC8277)

Each node peers with its neighbors via a eBGP session

should be

Each node peers with its neighbors via an eBGP session

7.  Addressing the open problems

the same could be re-used in context of
   other domains as well

A period is missing in the end.

Are the centralized controller and centralized agent the same components?

Even though the design in this document is specified for same domain, it would
be useful to develop an approach for inter-domain without leaking intra-domain
topology and policy.

Have this feature been included or being aligned with carrier grade FIB in
FD.io VPP https://wiki.fd.io/view/VPP ?

Thanks for addressing my discuss!