Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04
review-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04-secdir-lc-perlman-2020-08-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-07-21
Requested 2020-07-07
Authors Stephane Litkowski, Swadesh Agrawal, krishnaswamy ananthamurthy, Keyur Patel
Draft last updated 2020-08-06
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -06 by Tim Chown
Assignment Reviewer Radia Perlman 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04-secdir-lc-perlman-2020-08-06
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/YFSHOH2NqwWm8i4JzaGi5ijF0NY
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 06)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2020-07-26

Review
review-ietf-bess-rfc5549revision-04-secdir-lc-perlman-2020-08-06

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.



Summary: I have found no issues with the document.

This document specifies the extensions necessary to allow advertising IPv4
NLRI or VPN-IPV4 NLRI with an IPv6 next hop address.

The document is fine.


Nit: I didn't quite understand a word in the acknowledgement section

"  The authors would like to thank Francois Le Faucheur and Eric Rosen

   for the edition and their work on [RFC5549
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5549>]."

What do you mean by "edition"?  Do you perhaps mean "editing work"?

Would you still be properly acknowledging them if you removed the
words "the edition and", and made it simply "for their work

on RFC5549"?


Radia