Distribution of Traffic Engineering Extended Administrative Groups Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS)
RFC 9104
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 16 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Yes
John Scudder Yes
Thanks for the clear and short document! Below are a couple minor editorial comments. 1. Abstract Administrative groups are link attributes advertised used for traffic Advertised, or used, pick one. (Probably keep used and delete advertised.) 2. Section 2 This document defines an extension that enable BGP-LS speakers to s/enable/enables/
Erik Kline No Objection
Lars Eggert No Objection
All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools, so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. "Abstract", paragraph 1, nit: > Administrative groups are link attributes advertised used for traffic "advertised used" - pick one? Section 2, paragraph 2, nit: - This document defines an extension that enable BGP-LS speakers to + This document defines an extension that enables BGP-LS speakers to + + "D", paragraph 4, nit: > s an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of extended administrative groups > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The usual collocation for "advertisement" is "for", not "of". Did you mean "advertisement for"? Section 1, paragraph 2, nit: > OSPFv3 [RFC5340]. The BGP-LS advertisement of the originally defined (non- e > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The usual collocation for "advertisement" is "for", not "of". Did you mean "advertisement for"? Section 1, paragraph 3, nit: > fies an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of the extended administrative > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The usual collocation for "advertisement" is "for", not "of". Did you mean "advertisement for"? Section 4, paragraph 2, nit: > g the TLVs into BGP-LS. The advertisement of the link attribute information > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The usual collocation for "advertisement" is "for", not "of". Did you mean "advertisement for"?
Martin Duke No Objection
Murray Kucherawy No Objection
In Section 2, "MUST be multiple of 4" is missing an "a".
Robert Wilton (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my discuss.
Roman Danyliw No Objection
Per Section 4 (Security Considerations), It is assumed that the IGP instances originating this TLV will support all the required security (as described in [RFC7308]) in order to prevent any security issues when propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS. The Security Considerations (Section 3) of RFC7308 reads "This extension adds no new security considerations." What guidance is this sentence providing?
Éric Vyncke No Objection
Thank you for the document. Please find below some non-blocking comments. Regards -éric -- Abstract -- I cannot parse/understand " attributes advertised used " -- Section 2 -- "TLV MUST be considered malformed" but then what actions need to be taken ? Ignored (I guess) ?
(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) No Objection
Section 4
[Roman already covered the question about what the "required security"
from 7308 is, so I won't duplicate that]
The advertisement of the link attribute information defined
in this document presents no significant additional risk beyond that
associated with the existing link attribute information already
supported in [RFC7752].
This seems like the key point to make in this section, and might be
promoted to appear first.
I do think there is some additional risk (perhaps not significant,
though) in going from original AG to EAG, mostly in the form of the
repeated information in the first 32 bits and risk of skew between them.
It seems that the IESG comments on RFC 7038
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7308/ballot/) included some useful
suggestions for security considerations, but they were not acted on at
that time. We could still choose to incorporate them now, since the
considerations are basically identical for BGP-LS as for the IGPs that
7038 covered.
(Martin Vigoureux; former steering group member) No Objection