Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-18
review-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-18-rtgdir-lc-robles-2021-12-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 24)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2021-12-08
Requested 2021-11-18
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Alexander Azimov , Eugene Bogomazov , Randy Bush , Keyur Patel , Kotikalapudi Sriram
Draft last updated 2021-12-08
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)
Comments
The rtg-dir reviewed -15, but there have been significant changes to the text (not the mechanism) since then.  Please re-review.
Assignment Reviewer Ines Robles
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-18-rtgdir-lc-robles-2021-12-08
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/jiJ89hDBp_qGE0b7rN5Vpz0Q6Jc
Reviewed revision 18 (document currently at 24)
Result Ready
Completed 2021-12-08
review-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-18-rtgdir-lc-robles-2021-12-08-00
Hello,

I have been selected to do a routing directorate review of this draft.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-open-policy-18
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 08-12-2021
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

This document provides configuration automation using BGP Roles. An optional,
transitive BGP Path Attribute, called Only to Customer (OTC), is specified. It
prevents ASes from creating leaks and detects leaks created by the ASes in the
middle of an AS path.

This document is basically ready for publication, I have some minor
comments/questions below.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/Comments/Questions:

1- It would be nice to mention in the first paragraph of Section 4 when you
present the OTC Attribute that is included into the UPDATE message.

2- Should the attribute-flags of the OTC attribute mentioned explicitly in
Section 4? e.g. the high order bit (bit 0) is 1 (optional); the bit 1 is 1
(transitive); the bit 2 (partial bit) is 0/1(?), etc?

4- In Section 4,  the ingress policies guide to leak detection and the egress
policies guide to leak prevention. Correct?

5- Section 5: Is there a formal definition for complex peering relationships?
Should it be added into terminology section? Maybe defining what is a simple
peering relationship and then stating that what is not simple is complex?

How are the security considerations in complex peering relationships?

Thanks for this document,
Ines.