Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-03
review-ietf-idr-as-migration-03-secdir-lc-wouters-2015-04-23-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-as-migration |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2015-02-13 | |
Requested | 2015-04-16 | |
Authors | Wesley George , Shane Amante | |
I-D last updated | 2015-04-23 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -03
by Paul Wouters
(diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Thomas Morin (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Thomas Morin (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Paul Wouters |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-idr-as-migration by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 06) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2015-04-23 |
review-ietf-idr-as-migration-03-secdir-lc-wouters-2015-04-23-00
Secdir review of draft-ietf-idr-as-migration-04 [Note: I am not a BGP expert] 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. This document describes a common AS migration deployment scenario, and lists the features and practises that are used in an AS migration for reference in future BGP work. Additionally, it is a useful document for those BGP administrators that need to perform such an AS migration. I think this draft is Ready. My only suggestion would be to consider to emphasize the warning paragraph at the end of section 3.2 on routing loops either by creating its own sub-section or by mentioning this again in the Security Considerations. (But I might be more sensitive to routing loops than real BGP administrators) Paul