Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16

Request Review of draft-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 27)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-06-19
Requested 2017-05-30
Requested by Alia Atlas
Authors Peter Psenak, Stefano Previdi, Clarence Filsfils, Hannes Gredler, Rob Shakir, Wim Henderickx, Jeff Tantsura
Draft last updated 2017-06-19
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -12 by Stig Venaas (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Susan Hares (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -16 by John Drake (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -19 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -22 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
I just did an AD review with a number of issues, so you may find it helpful to wait for an updated
draft if it comes quickly.  Regardless, having a second solid review would be very helpful.
For me, this review took a long time & turned into scanning through many of the related SPRING documents.
Assignment Reviewer John Drake
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions-16-rtgdir-lc-drake-2017-06-19
Reviewed rev. 16 (document currently at 27)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2017-06-19



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 ‚Äč

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-ospf-segment-routing-extensions
Reviewer: John E Drake
Review Date: 19-June-2017
IETF LC End Date: 19-June-2017
Intended Status: Standards Track

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

This document is clearly written and a model of brevity, although it assumes a certain familiarity with the topic of segment routing.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
As recommended by the document shepherd, Acee Lindem, sections 6.1 and 6.2 should be removed because they lack an associated elements of procedure and apparently no one has implemented them.

Yours Irrespectively,