Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-02
review-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-02-rtgdir-lc-ceccarelli-2017-10-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-10-17
Requested 2017-10-09
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Comments
The deadline can extend until the Telechat, but the document hasn't been scheduled yet (so I'm guessing Oct/26).
Review State Completed
Reviewer Daniele Ceccarelli
Review review-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-02-rtgdir-lc-ceccarelli-2017-10-26
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/cCtGb7UTFTg87tIgLPcZt-40HJc
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Has Issues
Draft last updated 2017-10-26
Review closed: 2017-10-26

Review
review-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-02-rtgdir-lc-ceccarelli-2017-10-26

Resend as the mail is not archived by the list

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-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-02
Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli
Review Date: 25/10/2017
IETF LC End Date: On agenda of 2017-11-30 IESG telechat Intended Status: Standard Track

Summary: 

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

Comments:

The draft is sometimes hard to read, mostly the abstract (which should be clear on the scope of the draft), what is being defined and above all the intended status. In some parts the draft seems to be a recommendation, in some others a standard track. Which one?

Major Issues:
- None 

Minor Issues  and nits:
- The abstract is a bit hard to read. E.g. the usage of "will also manage" might become obsolete sooner or later and this sentence "But the rollover
   of CA and EE certificates BGPsec router certificates have..." doesn't make much sense. -
- Moreover the abstract says: "This document provides general recommendations for the rollover process". How can it be a standard track then?
- Intro: "Additionally, the BGP speaker MUST refresh its outbound BGPsec Update messages to include a signature using the new  key (replacing the old key)." I wouldn't expect a MUST in the intro. I understand this is something defined in other documents, hence should not be in capital letters and probably added a reference. 
- Section 3 ditto. "A BGPsec router certificate SHOULD be replaced when the following events occur" is this something new defined in this document?
- Typo/Punctuation/wrong usage of capital letters: there is a number of them all over the document. Why OLD key is always used with old in capital letters?

Thanks
Daniele