Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-15
review-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-15-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2016-11-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-11-28
Requested 2016-11-08
Authors Sean Turner , Oliver Borchert
I-D last updated 2016-11-28
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -16 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Christopher Inacio (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -16 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jouni Korhonen
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 15 (document currently at 18)
Result Has nits
Completed 2016-11-28
review-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-15-opsdir-lc-korhonen-2016-11-28-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These 
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the 
IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews 
during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments 
just like any other last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 2016-11-28
IETF LC End Date: 2016-11-28
IESG Telechat date: 2016-12-15

Summary:

The document is ready with nits.

Comments/questions:

o There are a couple of acronyms that could be expanded like OID and CRL.
o There are two downrefs. Are these intentional?
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2986
  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 6090
o Section 7 IANA Considerations says on line 192:
  "Infrastructure (RPKI) group.  The one-octet BGPsec Algorithm Suite”
                                     ^^^^^^^^^
  However, in the following table and text it says nothing about
  values 0x10-0xff. Are these unassigned or reserved? This is a bit
  confusing since the table lists values up to 0xF (one-nibble).