Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02
review-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02-genart-lc-sparks-2019-02-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-02-26
Requested 2019-02-12
Draft last updated 2019-02-20
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -02 by Eric Gray (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Al Morton (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -03 by Martin Stiemerling (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02-genart-lc-sparks-2019-02-20
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-02-20

Review
review-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02-genart-lc-sparks-2019-02-20

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-mpls-sr-over-ip-02
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2019-02-20
IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-26
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready, but with nits that should be addressed before publication as a Standards Track RFC

Nits

The 2nd sentence of the introduction is complex. It should be easy to simplify.

It would help to place the reference to draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy label at "If encoding of entropy is desired". (Or if some other reference is better, use that)

In that same paragraph, something is wrong at "make use of entropy label mechanism." Should that be "the entropy label mechanism"?

SRGB is used without expansion. 

Where is "the lower bound" of an SRGB defined? The string "lower bound" doesn't occur in either of the routing-extensions drafts referenced where SRGB is first used.
 
Section 3.1 is about ostensibly about constructing a FIB entry, but its last step is sending a packet.

The first sentence in section 3.2 is more complex than it needs to be. It should be easy to simplify.

It would be nice if you could make the differences between the routers in figures 3 and 4 visually apparent rather than relying on text to explain the difference.
Something like (view in a fixed width font):

s-----s      i-----i
|  A  +------+  B  +--
s-----s      i--+--i
                |

At the first paragraph on page 9: s/and then process/and then processes/