Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr-02
review-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr-02-opsdir-lc-wu-2022-12-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr-01
Requested revision 01 (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2022-12-02
Requested 2022-10-13
Requested by Jeffrey Haas
Authors Jim Uttaro , Enke Chen , Bruno Decraene , John Scudder
I-D last updated 2022-12-01
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Valery Smyslov
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Bo Wu (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -02 by Mike McBride (diff)
Comments 
This draft has long been implemented by several vendors, particularly in support of VPN technologies.  The functionality covered in this draft does lead to long-lived stale routing that continues to be advertised in the BGP routing protocol, and related service protocol extensions that may use that state.  While such state is an item of concern, and likely will alarm reviewers who are being exposed to this mechanism for the first time, it is the desired behavior of the mechanism.
Assignment Reviewer Bo Wu
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/Phkk6E26N-z83AnjO1z6VMtKzpU
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 06)
Result Has nits
Completed 2022-12-01
review-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr-02-opsdir-lc-wu-2022-12-01-00
I am the assigned Ops reviewer for this draft. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-long-lived-gr-02

Summary:

This document (with intended status Standards Track) defines BGP Graceful
Restart udpates to keep stale routes longer, mainly for tunnel forwarding
infrastructure scenarios or scenarios where BGP is used to optimize management
configurations.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

Question 1: In the current version, only RFC 6368 is mentioned in Updates.
Would RFC 4724 also need to be updated?

Question 2: Would RFC6368 be in the normative reference?

Question 3: Is there a suggested default value for Long-lived Stale Time?

Thanks,
Bo