Skip to main content

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