Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp-11
review-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp-11-artart-lc-thompson-2026-06-28-00

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 ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2026-05-27
Requested 2026-05-13
Authors Job Snijders , Tobias Fiebig , Massimiliano Stucchi
I-D last updated 2026-08-13 (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 Henry S. Thompson
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/4OsuCUNsUbgGc2Gd4JZBQd-_Op0
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2026-06-28
review-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp-11-artart-lc-thompson-2026-06-28-00
Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp-11
Title: Guidance to Avoid Carrying RPKI Validation States in BGP Path Attributes
Reviewer: Henry S. Thompson
Review Date: 2025-06-17

*Summary*

As far as I can tell as a non-specialist, the presentation of this
proposed BCP is in good shape.  One minor suggestion and some
editorial nits follow below.

*Minor point*

1.

 ... "states leak through to EGBP speakers."  Would it be possible to
 _briefly_ mention here at least one known way in which such leakage
 can occur in a conformant router?  That way operators of 'good'
 routers may realise this document is relevant to them.

*Nits*

1.

 In this phrase

 "Annotating ... Attribute carried across EBGP session (based on validation
  states) means that BGP UPDATE messages have to be sent to every
  neighbor when the aforementioned validation states"

 there's a minor grammatical problem.  I would suggest the following
 change

 "... Attribute carried across an EBGP session (based on validation
  states) means that BGP UPDATE messages have to be sent to every
  neighbor when the aforementioned validation states"

4.

 "BGP communities" -> "BGP Communities" [here and in 4 other places below]

 "hold similar" -> "hold in a similar way"

4.1

 "a large amounts" -> "large amounts"

4.1.2

 "caused by operators to signal validation states" ->
 "caused by operators signalling validation states"