Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-05
review-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-09-12-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-09-22 | |
Requested | 2014-09-11 | |
Authors | Jerome Durand , Ivan Pepelnjak, Gert Döring | |
I-D last updated | 2014-09-12 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by Christer Holmberg
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Christer Holmberg (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Alexey Melnikov (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Lionel Morand (diff) Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Geoff Huston (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Christer Holmberg |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2014-09-12 |
review-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-09-12-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> Document: draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-05.txt Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 12 September 2014 IETF LC End Date: 22 September 2014 IETF Telechat Date: N/A Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. However, there are some minor editorial nits that I suggest the authors to address. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Editorial nits: General: QG_1: Please be consistent on whether you write both the RFC- and the reference number, or only the reference number. For example, in section 4 you write “see RFC6192 [18].” and in section 5 “documented in [26].”. Section 1: Q1_1: Please expand the BGP abbreviation on first occurrence (outside the Abstract). Q1_2: The second sentence starts with “This protocol does not directly…”. It is a little unclear what “This” refers to. Assuming you refer to BGP, I suggest you say “BGP does not directly…”. Section 4: Q_4_1: In the first paragraph, why is “should” be with small letters? Q_4_2: The last sentence says “For a more detailed recommendation, see RFC6192 [18].”. Recommendation on what? Section 5: Q_5_1: The name of section 5 uses “BGP sessions”, but the section text does not say anything about BGP sessions. And, in section 5.1 you only talk about “TCP sessions used by BGP”. Only in section 5.2 do you mention “BGP session”. Perhaps you should add some general text to section 5 about BGP sessions, how TCP is used to transport BGP messages in BGP sessions etc, and then in section 5.1 only talk about protection of TCP. Section 15: Q_15_1: s/”about about”/”about” Q_15_2: s/”It will not”/”It does not” Regards, Christer