IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp-06
review-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp-06-genart-lc-kyzivat-2026-05-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2026-05-27
Requested 2026-05-13
Authors Job Snijders , Tobias Fiebig , Massimiliano Stucchi
I-D last updated 2026-06-29 (Latest revision 2026-06-29)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -11 by Henry S. Thompson (diff)
Bgpdir Early review of -09 by John Scudder (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Scott G. Kelly (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -09 by Scott G. Kelly (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Paul Kyzivat
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/5kFxO6tq7duJ4FCwiVOmgJ7FtQI/
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready
Completed 2026-05-24
review-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp-06-genart-lc-kyzivat-2026-05-24-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at:
<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp-06
Title: Guidance to Avoid Carrying RPKI Validation States in Transitive 
BGP Path Attributes
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2026-05-23
IETF LC End Date: 2026-05-27
IESG Telechat date: ?

Summary:
This draft is ready for publication as a Best Current Practice RFC.

Comment:

One thing to look at: The "Workgroup" item in the header is "Network 
Working Group". I think it should be "SIDEROPS". (I didn't think this 
deserved formally raising as an issue. I see the same problem in many 
documents.)