Telechat Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-03
review-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-03-rtgdir-telechat-dhody-2018-08-11-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
Deadline | 2018-08-16 | |
Requested | 2018-07-30 | |
Requested by | Alvaro Retana | |
Authors | Randy Bush | |
I-D last updated | 2018-08-11 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03
by Brian E. Carpenter
(diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -03 by Dhruv Dhody (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Yoav Nir (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Dhruv Dhody |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Has issues | |
Completed | 2018-08-11 |
review-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-03-rtgdir-telechat-dhody-2018-08-11-00
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-ov-clarify-03 Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody Review Date: 10 Aug 2018 IETF LC End Date: Unknown Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: This is a standards track draft that clarifies the behavior of Origin Validation in BGP (and thus updates RFC 6811). It states that the origin validation MUST be done for all routes, including the imported routes; where as the RFC 6811 uses "SHOULD". This I-D further states that the policy is applied only if explicitly configured by the operator. The clarifications are clear and easy to follow. The I-D is technically sound and almost ready. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: - The text in RFC6811 uses the term “lookup” and “validation state”, the clarification uses the term “mark”. This might be a bit pedantic but wouldn’t it be better to state the clarification in terms of RFC6811? - Since RFC4271 and RFC6480 are stated as mandatory reading to understand this I-D in section 2, shouldn’t they be normative references? - I agree with the Gen-ART review, that ask for BGP in the title, in fact “Prefix Origin Validation” in the title would be better! Nits: - Expand RPKI in Abstract. - The Requirement language phrasing is little different from RFC 8174. Thanks! Dhruv