Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-05
review-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-05-secdir-early-wouters-2021-05-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Early Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2021-02-19
Requested 2021-02-05
Requested by Susan Hares
Authors Ketan Talaulikar, Peter Psenak, Jeff Tantsura
Draft last updated 2021-05-20
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Andy Smith (diff)
Secdir Early review of -05 by Paul Wouters (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -04 by Scott Bradner (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Himanshu Shah (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Paul Wouters 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-05-secdir-early-wouters-2021-05-20
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/CnMRbZHbgABse7mshj0oIqK3aNs
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2021-05-20

Review
review-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-app-specific-attr-05-secdir-early-wouters-2021-05-20

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.

The summary of the review is Has Nits

In section 3 it lists 1092 as "TE Metric" but RFC 7522 lists it as "TE Default Metric". And 1116 is listed as "Unidirectional link delay variation" but RFC 8571 lists it as "Unidirectional Delay Variation". And 1117 shows "packet loss" vs "link loss". There are more subtle differences.  Maybe ensure these terms are synced up better, unless there is a reason these terms are different/updated ?

      Link attributes that do not have application-specific semantics SHOULD NOT be advertised within the ASLA TLV.

Is there a reason why this is SHOULD NOT and not MUST NOT? In other words, do you have an example of where the SHOULD NOT would not apply? And if so, should that be mentioned here? Same for the following SHOULD case,

In section 4, "[RFC8920] " appears without an actual link. It's either missing the xref target, or there is a bug in rendering the xml to html?

grammar nit:
CURRENT:  They were originally defined
PROPOSED: These were originally defined