This is an Early Review, requested by the WG chair.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-srv6-05
Reviewer: Matthew Bocci
Review Date: May 24th 2024
Intended Status: Experimental

Summary:
The draft is clear and well written. I have a few nits about the grammar. I have one major comment (which lead to the 'not ready' result). This is that the draft seems to require the implementation of a set of SRv6 behaviors that are described in an individual draft in the SPRING working group, that it is not clear that there is consensus on and that are not registered with IANA. This makes even implementing the experiment a problem. I think it is premature to progress this draft before draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids has progressed and the corresponding behaviors registered with IANA.

Major Comments:
Section 4, SRv6 Encapsulation Information.
The text references END.REPLACE, END.REPLACEB6, and END.DB6 using a normative reference to draft-salih-spring-srv6-inter-domain-sids. It says "These are leveraged for BGP-CT routes with SRv6 data plane." and indeed uses them extensively in the examples further on in the draft. However, the code points for these are not yet assigned in https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml and the IANA considerations sections of both drafts make no requests of IANA to allocate these.
The RTGDIR review of v03 of the draft also made a comment on this part of the text, asking if these new behaviors were required, but I do not see any updates to the text to address this comment. If these are really needed for draft-ietf-bgp-ct-srv6, then one would at least expect them to be defined in a standards track working group draft and to see an early allocation by IANA, regardless of the experimental status of bgp-ct-srv6. 

Nits:
There are a few cases in the draft where the definite article ('the' or also 'an') is missing. For example, in the abstract:
s/applied to SRv6 dataplane/applied to the SRv6 dataplane
s/procedures work in SRv6 dataplane/procedures work in the SRv6 dataplane.
I would suggest going through the draft and correcting cases such as this.