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]
