Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-11
review-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-11-rtgdir-early-weis-2015-09-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 36)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2015-09-08
Requested 2015-08-25
Authors Randy Bush , Keyur Patel , David Ward
I-D last updated 2015-09-08
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -11 by Brian Weis (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -33 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -33 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -35 by Rich Salz (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -33 by Himanshu C. Shah (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Weis
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 36)
Result Has issues
Completed 2015-09-08
review-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-11-rtgdir-early-weis-2015-09-08-00

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the
 review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about
 the Routing Directorate, please see ​<

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

>

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion
or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-extended-messages-11

Reviewer: Brian Weis

Review Date: September 3, 2015

IETF LC End Date: Unknown

Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary

:

I have a minor concern about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication.

Comments:

The document is clearly written and easy to understand.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

Section 5 (Error Handling) delineates two error cases possible when a BGP
speaker has not advertised that it can use extended messages, but does receive
one from a peer. Each case has its own paragraph in this section. The first
paragraph describes a BGP speaker
 that can use extended messages (but has not advertised it); the second
 paragraph describes a BGP speaker that actually cannot use extended messages.
 In the second paragraph the error response is clearly stated (i.e., follow the
 error handling procedures of RFC 4221 and reset the session). But as written
 it does not seem that any such response is required for the first case. It
 isn’t clear to me why this type of BGP speaker would respond differently, and
 if the error response was intended for both cases then I suggest the text
 describing the response be separated into a third paragraph. In any case it
 would be valuable to explicitly describe the expected response of the BGP
 speaker in both cases.