This is an Early Review, requested by the WG chair.
 
Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-03
Reviewer: Jon Hardwick
Review Date: March 22nd 2024
Intended Status: Experimental

Summary:
 
This is a companion document to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct.  It describes procedures and encodings applicable to BGP-CT where the transport network supports SRv6.  It also shows two different methods of implementing BGP-CT in a multi-domain SRv6 network.

I have no major concerns about this document. I have a few comments / questions / nits, as follows.

Comments:

S4 para 1 - "These are leveraged for BGP CT routes with SRv6 data plane."  The meaning of this is unclear. Are you saying that these are the only endpoint behaviours that can be used for BGP-CT? Is there a normative statement (SHOULD/MUST) that you need to make, or is it just that these are the most useful endpoint behaviours in this setting?

S4 para 3 – I don't think you need to say this sentence twice: “The BGP Classful Transport route update for SRv6 MUST include an attribute containing SRv6 SID information.”

S5 – This section, which comprises the bulk of the material in the document, is a pair of detailed worked examples explaining options for configuring SRv6 networks.  Do we need to standardize these options?  If not, could they be in an appendix (or a separate informational document)?  In any case, it would be helpful to explain when each option would be applicable in an operator network (why prefer one or the other?).

Acknowledgements section seems to have been block-copied from draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct :-)  The second paragraph does not seem relevant to draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6.