Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-05
review-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-05-rtgdir-lc-bryant-2019-04-18-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
| Deadline | 2019-04-30 | |
| Requested | 2019-03-21 | |
| Requested by | Alvaro Retana | |
| Authors | Randy Bush | |
| Draft last updated | 2019-04-18 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -05
by
Stewart Bryant
(diff)
|
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Stewart Bryant |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-05-rtgdir-lc-bryant-2019-04-18
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 06) | |
| Result | Has Nits | |
| Completed | 2019-04-18 |
review-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-05-rtgdir-lc-bryant-2019-04-18-00
This is a well written document. There are a couple of nits that need addressing but otherwise it is ready to publish. ============ 6. Security Considerations Though the above use cases are all constrained to local contexts, they violate the model of a single global PKI, albeit to meet real operational needs. Hence they MUST be implemented to assure the local constraint. SB> I can see why RFC2119 language is used, and it seems correct to use it, however Nits is complaining that there is no RFC2119 boilerplate. ========= [I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview] Lepinski, M. and S. Turner, "An Overview of BGPSEC", draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-02 (work in progress), May 2012. SB> Nits asks if you mean this version or -08?