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 rev. 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
Draft 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
Review review-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-09-12
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2014-09-12

Review
review-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2014-09-12






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