Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11
review-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11-genart-lc-holmberg-2021-04-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2021-04-09
Requested 2021-03-26
Authors Enke Chen , John Scudder
Draft last updated 2021-04-15
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)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11-genart-lc-holmberg-2021-04-15
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/wh0qyaHht3-CQCJjFoJJqczWMao
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 13)
Result Almost Ready
Completed 2021-04-15
review-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11-genart-lc-holmberg-2021-04-15-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2021-04-15
IETF LC End Date: 2021-04-09
IESG Telechat date: 2021-04-22

Summary: The document is easy to read, and I have no technical issues. However,
I do have a minor question, and a couple of editorial suggestions, that I'd
like the authors to address.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues:

Q1: As far as I understand, the document only defines a new BGP OPEN Optional
Parameter Type, but does not modify/add procedures in RFC 4271. So, is the
document really an update to RFC 4271? And, when reading RFC 5429, I cannot
find any text saying that new parameter types would require an update to RFC
4271. I also looked at a few other RFCs that add new values to the BGP IANA
registry, and they were not updating any RFC.

Nits/editorial comments:

Q2: I suggest that Section 2 is renamed to  "New Optional Parameter Type code",
or something like that. OR, if the document really is updating RFC 4271,
perhaps "Update to RFC 4271".

Q3: I suggest that Section 3 is renamed to "Backward Compatibility", or
something like that.