Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-12
review-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-12-genart-telechat-sparks-2018-02-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-02-20
Requested 2018-02-08
Draft last updated 2018-02-19
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -12 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -11 by Adam Montville (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-12-genart-telechat-sparks-2018-02-19
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 18)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2018-02-19

Review
review-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-12-genart-telechat-sparks-2018-02-19

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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-12
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2018-02-19
IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-22
IESG Telechat date: 2018-02-22

Summary: Almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC

Major issue: 
The security considerations section is essentially empty (what it currently says reduces to "don't let malformed packets crash your implementation". Surely there's more to say here. Is there an assumption that, in any given deployment, the administrators of the bier layer and the ospf layer are the same people, and have the same authority? If so, it's probably worth saying so. If not, are there edges to discuss? If this document really doesn't introduce any new security considerations, it should argue why that's the case.

Minor issues:
Is there a reason not to use the example/documentation IPV4 address ranges? (See the shepherd writeup).
The author count is above the current RFC-Editor/IESG recommendations. Work that out with your ADs.