Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-10-17
Requested 2017-10-09
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Brian Weis , Roque Gagliano , Keyur Patel
I-D last updated 2017-10-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -02 by Daniele Ceccarelli (diff)
The deadline can extend until the Telechat, but the document hasn't been scheduled yet (so I'm guessing Oct/26).
Assignment Reviewer Daniele Ceccarelli
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-02-rtgdir-lc-ceccarelli-2017-10-26
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 04)
Result Has Issues
Completed 2017-10-26
Resend as the mail is not archived by the list


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

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


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


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