Long-Lived Graceful Restart for BGP
draft-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr-06

Yes

Andrew Alston

No Objection

Erik Kline
Jim Guichard
Lars Eggert
Murray Kucherawy
Paul Wouters
Roman Danyliw
Warren Kumari
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Éric Vyncke

Recuse

John Scudder

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Andrew Alston
Yes
Erik Kline
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Lars Eggert
No Objection
Comment (2023-08-04) Sent 
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr-06

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Stewart Bryant for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/h5dRb_BAviIWxKRasRMp-Y4AUDE).

## Comments

Thanks for a well-written document!

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term `traditional`; alternatives might be `classic`, `classical`, `common`,
   `conventional`, `customary`, `fixed`, `habitual`, `historic`,
   `long-established`, `popular`, `prescribed`, `regular`, `rooted`,
   `time-honored`, `universal`, `widely used`, `widespread`

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Comment (2023-08-10) Sent 
The shepherd writeup misses correctly answering a few important questions: (a) Why is this the right document status? (b) Why is it recommending designated experts for a registry that doesn't require any?  (c) The answer to question 10 appears to suggest there's an IDR area, when there isn't.
Paul Wouters
(was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2023-08-10) Sent for earlier 
Thanks to John and Amanda for answering my DISCUSSes.
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2023-08-04) Not sent 
Thank you to Valery Smyslov for the SECDIR review.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment (2023-08-08) Sent 
I'll note that I personally think that this proposal provides many many opportunities for shooting oneself in the foot, but you do point that out quite clearly in the Deployment and Security Considerations sections, so... well... um... if consenting adults decide to do this, it ain't my place to say No.

I **do** think that the document would be improved with some better explanations of under what conditions the 4095 second (1.1h!) GR time might not be sufficient. It does handwave some examples like VPLS and Flowspec, but I'm not at all convinced that if I e.g deploy filters using Flowspec that the "right" answer isn't for these to revert if the neighbor isn't back after 1h. 


I'd also like to thank Bo Wu for the OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr-02-opsdir-lc-wu-2022-12-01/) and the authors for responding.
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Comment (2023-08-07) Sent 
Thanks for working on this specification. My review raised no transport related issues, hence no objection.
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
John Scudder
Recuse
Comment (2023-08-01) Not sent 
I'm an author.