Hi Christian, Thank you for the reply and actioning of items.
All looks good, I have amended my review. Thanks Jacqui On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 7:32 AM Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jacqueline, > > Thank you for your review and comments and sorry it took so long to > respond. > > We have addressed them in the newly uploaded -14 version of the draft. > > Also a few comments below via [cs] > > Regards > Christian & Andrew > > > On 17.12.2025, at 00:04, Jacqueline McCall via Datatracker < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Document: draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy > > Title: Circuit Style Segment Routing Policy > > Reviewer: Jacqueline McCall > > Review result: Has Issues > > > > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's > ongoing > > effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These > comments > > were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. > Document > > editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other > last call > > comments. The summary of the review is: “Ready with issues.” > > > > Issues Identified: > > > > 1. OAM and Security Considerations > > - Section 9 mentions S-BFD (Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) > as an > > option for continuity checks. However, the Security Considerations > section does > > not reference RFC 7880, which defines S-BFD. Please consider adding this > as a > > security considerations reference for completeness. > > [cs] good catch, we forgot to add a reference. I have included it now > > > 2. Reference Updates - In > > the PCEP Security Considerations section, the draft references > > I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp. This document is now published > as RFC > > 9862. Please update the reference accordingly. - In the BGP section, the > draft > > references I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy. This is now RFC 9857. Please > also > > update this reference accordingly. > > [cs] done, looks like during last update a few drafts became RFCs > > > Suggested Editorial Improvements: > > > > - Ensure consistency in terminology (e.g., “candidate path” vs > “Candidate Path” > > and "circuit-style" vs Circuit-Style" vs "Circuit Style"). - > > [cs] I consolidated to “Circuit Style”. However for candidate paths I > think we are already consistently using “candidate path”, the only > exceptions are capitalised headings and references to NLRIs or TLVs to stay > consistent with the Capitalisation used in RFC9857. > > > Verify that all > > references in Section 14 are up-to-date and correctly formatted after RFC > > promotions. > > [cs] done > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
