Early Review of draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-09
review-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-09-secdir-early-cam-winget-2020-12-17-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 13) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2020-12-07 | |
| Requested | 2020-11-12 | |
| Requested by | Susan Hares | |
| Authors | Enke Chen , John Scudder | |
| I-D last updated | 2020-12-17 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -04
by Matthew Bocci
(diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -07 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) Secdir Early review of -09 by Nancy Cam-Winget (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Al Morton (diff) Genart Last Call review of -11 by Christer Holmberg (diff) |
|
| Comments |
The security reviewer should read the following from the shepherd: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/I-NJotd8_5TFgJ_kSdcKI-mQim8/ |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Nancy Cam-Winget |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/_tdwi02k1uDsL3dD73kmcaioVro | |
| Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 13) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2020-12-17 |
review-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-09-secdir-early-cam-winget-2020-12-17-00
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 the allowance for the extended optional parameters in BGP to be greater than 255. As written, the document is straightforward and on point. I only have an editorial nit and a suggestion. NIT: Section 2: 1st sentence of the 7th paragraph "that in the..." Needs to be fixed. Should it be: "that is in the..."? Suggestion: - As new drafts need to include security and privacy considerations, I think it would be good to just add in the security section (5) that it doesn't change both underlying security or privacy issues as noted in RFC5272.