Early Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-03
review-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-03-secdir-early-vucinic-2023-04-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-02
Requested revision 02 (document currently at 18)
Type Early Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2023-03-04
Requested 2023-02-13
Requested by Yingzhen Qu
Authors Acee Lindem , Aditya Dogra
I-D last updated 2023-04-06
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -12 by Russ White (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -13 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Secdir Early review of -13 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -15 by Dave Thaler (diff)
Secdir Early review of -03 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -02 by Tim Chown (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
Comments 
This draft updates RFC 5798 to use inclusive terminologies, as well some technical changes. We'd like to request early reviews before moving the document forward.
Assignment Reviewer Mališa Vučinić
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/hkeEh92WIXZzE6vOSLKAbgR6TaQ
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 18)
Result Has nits
Completed 2023-04-06
review-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-03-secdir-early-vucinic-2023-04-06-00
Apologies for sending this in late. The document updates RFC 5798 to use IETF
inclusive terminology and does other misc updates that are summarized in
Section 1.1. Among these, it states that "Additional Security Considerations
were added".

Comparing the document with RFC 5798, I did not spot new considerations in the
Security Considerations section other than the updates on terminology. So the
current version of the document seems to have kept the Security Considerations
published as part of RFC 5798.