I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-14 Reviewer: David L. Black Review Date: May 8, 2011 IESG Telechat date: May 12, 2011 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: The nits/editorial comments noted in the Gen-ART review of the -13 version of this draft have been addressed in the -14 version. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Black, David > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:37 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: Black, David; John Scudder; Stewart Bryant > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-13 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, > please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may > receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-13.txt > Reviewer: David L. Black > Review Date: April 19, 2011 > IETF LC End Date: April 18, 2011 > > Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that > should be fixed before > publication. > > This is a short draft that extends BGP to remove the requirement for use > of IPv4 addresses as BGP identifiers, and specifies the scope of uniqueness > for the resulting BGP identifiers as AS-wide. > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > This draft is missing an "Updates:" header to indicate what RFCs it updates. > I believe it updates at least RFC 4271. > > The Acknowledgements section refers to IPv6-only networks as a rationale for > these changes to BGP. Please add a couple of sentences to section 1 to > explain why IPv6-only networks are a motivation for these changes. > > At the end of Section 3 - please remove the word "proposed" from the first > line of the following (as the changes will no longer be "proposed" when > the draft is published as an RFC): > > Therefore it is concluded that the revisions proposed in this > document do not introduce any backward compatibility issue with the > current usage of the BGP Identifier. > > In Section 4, Security Considerations: > > This extension to BGP does not change the underlying security issues. > > I suggest changing that sentence to the following two sentences: > > This extension to BGP does not introduce new security considerations. > BGP security considerations are discussed in [RFC4271]. > > idnits 2.12.09 found some minor formatting problems (# lines/page, absence of > form feeds) that do not require a new version of the draft. > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
