Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11
review-ietf-idr-large-community-11-secdir-lc-roca-2016-12-22-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-idr-large-community |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2016-12-16 | |
Requested | 2016-12-02 | |
Authors | Jakob Heitz , Job Snijders , Keyur Patel , Ignas Bagdonas , Nick Hilliard | |
I-D last updated | 2016-12-22 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -06
by Geoff Huston
(diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Danny R. McPherson (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Rick Casarez (diff) Genart Last Call review of -11 by Robert Sparks (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Vincent Roca (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Vincent Roca |
State | Completed | |
Review |
review-ietf-idr-large-community-11-secdir-lc-roca-2016-12-22
|
|
Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 12) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2016-12-22 |
review-ietf-idr-large-community-11-secdir-lc-roca-2016-12-22-00
Hello, 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. IMHO, the document is Ready. This document specifies an extension to BGP Communities. The initial RFC1997 being a bit old, it does not include any security discussion section. Therefore it is important that the present document has a detailed discussion on the topic, which is actually the case. The level of details seems appropriate. Furthermore there is a dedicated "Error handling" section which is also fine. Cheers, Vincent