BGP-LS extensions for Segment Routing BGP Egress Peer Engineering
draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-segment-routing-epe-19

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 18 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana Yes

(Ignas Bagdonas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Roman Danyliw No Objection

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2019-05-15 for -18)
No email
send info
Thank you for writing this (and to Sheng for the OpsDir review).
I especially wanted to thank you / the WG for the "6.  Manageability Considerations"  section...

I have a few nits to offer:
"SR segments allows to enforce a flow through any topological"
This needs a subject ("SR segments allows the network to enforce a flow through any topological..."? or "SR segments allows steering a flow through any topological..." might be better) - actually, the sentence seems clumsy, but I cannot figure out how to reword it to be better.

"An ingress border router of an AS may compose a list of SIDs to steer a flow along a selected path within the AS, towards a selected egress border router C of the AS, and to a specific EBGP peer." - I'm not sure if this was copied from some earlier text / a diagram, but the 'C' is not needed / is confusing.

"3.  BGP-LS NLRI Advertisement for BGP Protocol
   his section describes ..."
Missing a 'T'

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2019-05-13 for -18)
Just editorial stuff...

Throughout: “i.e.” needs a comma after it.  So does “e.g.”.

— Section 1 —

   SR can be directly applied to either an MPLS dataplane (SR/MPLS) with
   no change on the forwarding plane or to a modified IPv6 forwarding

Make it “either to” so it’s parallel with the “or to” that comes later.

   centralized controller based BGP Egress Peer Engineering solution
   involving SR path computation using the BGP Peering Segments.  This
   use-case comprises of a centralized controller that learns the BGP

“Centralized-controller-based” is a compound adjective that needs to be hyphenated.  “Use case” is a noun, and should not be hyphenated.  And “comprises” should not have “of” after it (“consists of” would, though).

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

(Adam Roach) No Objection

Comment (2019-05-14 for -18)
Thanks for the work that everyone involved has put into this document.
I have only two minor editorial comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§1:

>  This
>  use-case comprises of a centralized controller that learns the BGP

Nit: "This use case is composed of a centralized controller..." or
"This use case comprises a centralized controller..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3:

>  his section describes the BGP-LS NLRI encodings that describe the BGP
>  peering and link connectivity between BGP routers.

Nit: "This section..."

Martin Vigoureux No Objection

Comment (2019-05-16 for -18)
Hi,

thanks for this document.
I only have a minor comment:
Throughout the document, PeerNode SID, PeerAdj SID and PeerSet SID are used but the IANA section and existing registry use Peer-Node-SID, Peer-Adj-SID, Peer-Set-SID.
Although there can't be any confusion, it might be worth having a single naming.

Magnus Westerlund No Objection