Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-15

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 24)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2021-05-13
Requested 2021-01-13
Requested by Susan Hares
Authors Alexander Azimov , Eugene Bogomazov , Randy Bush , Keyur Patel , Kotikalapudi Sriram
Draft last updated 2021-05-14
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -15 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -15 by Mach Chen (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -18 by Ines Robles (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -18 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -18 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
This work is part of a joint set of work between Grow and IDR.
Assignment Reviewer Mach Chen
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-15-rtgdir-early-chen-2021-05-14
Posted at
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 24)
Result Has Issues
Completed 2021-05-12

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
​ draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy /

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform
an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the
IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime
as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the
stage that the document has reached.

As this document has been sent to IESG for publication, my focus for the review
was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider
my comments along with the other last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-15.txt
Reviewer: Mach Chen
Review Date: 2021/05/13
Intended Status: Standards Track


This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits and minor
concerns that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.


Section 6.
It does not specify how a speaker handle a route with OTC attribute but the
sender's role is unknown.


Section 2.
s/ their customers/its customers

Section 3.
s/Allowed Role values/Allowed Roles

Section 4.
It's better to update the table as follows:

                      | Value | Role name           |
                      |   0   | Sender is Provider  |
                      |   1   | Sender is RS        |
                      |   2   | Sender is RS-client |
                      |   3   | Sender is Customer  |
                      |   4   | Sender is Peer      |
                      | 5-255  | Reserved      |

Section 5.
"If the role of the receiving speaker for the eBGP session in
   consideration is included in Table 1 and the observed Role pair is
   not in the above table,"

"If the observed Role pair is not in the above table,"

IMHO, it's redundant to include "If the role of the receiving speaker for the
eBGP session in consideration is included in Table 1", just keep the second
half of the sentence is enough.

Section 5.1

s/send a send a/send a, there is a redundant "send a".

Best regards,