I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-spring-dhc-distribute-srv6-locator-dhcp-??
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review Date: 2025-11-18
IETF LC End Date: 2025-11-25
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

Major issues:

Section 3 states BRAS and CPE are in different administrative domains. But Section 5.2 assumes BRAS can advertise routes using IGP inside the SR domain. This is contradicting: a BRAS cannot advertise in a domain it does not belong to.

Section 5.5 has a long sentence: “The first DHCPv6 relay agent needs to record the SRv6 Locator assigned by the DHCPv6 server, including SRv6 Locator information, lifetime, etc.”

Questions:
- Why must a relay record the lifetime if BRAS/server already does?
- What happens if the relay reboots?

- Does DHCPv6 server always install route?
In multiple places: “MAY install a local SRv6 Locator route…”


Minor issues:
- In Section 5.1, it says Figure 2, but the figure is actually Figure 4.

Nits/editorial comments:
Several terms appear with inconsistent capitalization or spelling:
- IA_SRv6_Locator vs IA_SRV6_LOCATOR
- IALocator-Options vs IA_Locator-Options
- SRv6 SID Locator length (LOC-Len) sometimes written SRv6 SID locator length.
It would be good to ensure consistent capitalization and spacing across document.

Grammar issues:
- “Telecom providers can use its IP Metro and Backbone networks…”
Should be: their networks.

- “SRv6 policies needs to be configured…”
Should be: policies need

Warm Regards, 
Linda Dunbar