Early Review of draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02
review-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02-rtgdir-early-patel-2015-01-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2015-01-26
Requested 2014-12-08
Authors Wesley George , Sandra L. Murphy
I-D last updated 2015-01-26
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Susan Hares (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Keyur Patel (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Wassim Haddad
Assignment Reviewer Keyur Patel
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 06)
Result Has nits
Completed 2015-01-26
review-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02-rtgdir-early-patel-2015-01-26-00

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review,
 and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide
 assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing
 Directorate, please see ​

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

.

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve
 them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02

Reviewer: Keyur Patel

Review Date: 14-Jan-2015

Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

No major issues found. Minor nits are listed below. This document is ready for
publication.

Comments:

IMHO, the document is well written and easily understood.

Major Issues:

None.

Minor Issues

None.

Nits:

Section 2, General Scenario: Replace : Confederations RFC 5065 [RFC5065] are

not

 being implemented between the ASNs with : BGP AS Confederation RFC 5065
 [RFC5065] is not enabled between ASNs.

Section 2, General Scenario: For Line starting with (2nd paragraph): "In the
following examples”, please list the section number where these examples are
described (Section 4).

Section 3: Can we replace the reference of companies with SPs?

Section 3.1: Replace : Overlapping ROAs with multiple ROAs (its not overlapping
ROAs its multiple ROAs showing different ASes owning originating prefixes)

Section 3.2.1: Isn’t the problem of increased ASPATH length explained in
section 3.2.2 applicable to 3.2.1? If so can reference it in 3.2.1 as well?

Section 5.2:  Can we refer to the fact that this is the only case where an
extra signing is done for before sending an update to an IBGP session?

Regards,

Keyur