[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc3065bis-05.txt

[Danny McPherson <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 16, 2006, at 2:30 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this document. For background
> on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at:
>
> 	http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html
>
> Please consider these comments along with any other last call  
> comments you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-idr-rfc3065bis-05.txt
>          (along with draft-mcpherson-idr-rfc3065bis-impl-00)
> Intended status: Draft
> Reviewer: Harald Alvestrand
> Date: August 16, 2006
> Summary: Ready, has nits
>
> This draft is going for Draft Standard. The implementation report  
> (which is an expired internet-draft, but also stored in the  
> implementation repository; http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Implementations/ 
> implem_RFC3065bis.txt) is also reviewed here.
>
> Basically, I think this is ready.

Harald,
Good feedback, thanks.  I'll add a complete "changes from previous  
rev/3065"
section, as there were a few noteworthy for the implementer.  I'm  
still working
with John on what to do with AS_CONFED_SET - more to follow there.  I'll
fix the nits below as well.

Good feedback from the GEN-ART team, many thanks!

-danny


>
> Nits:
>
> - The document has no "changes from RFC 3065" section. The  
> introduction has a paragraph outlining the changes, but does not  
> specify exactly what the protocol-impacting changes (if any) are.  
> For implementors attempting to upgrade their implementation to  
> conformance with the new document, such a section would be very  
> helpful.
>
> - Protocol puzzlement: As far as I can see, this protocol extension  
> defines the AS_CONFED_SET segment type, and specifies when it needs  
> to be removed from an AS_PATH, but never specifies a condition  
> under which an AS_CONFED_SET is inserted. If that's correct, adding  
> the phrase "not used now, reserved for future extension" to the  
> definition in section 3 would be helpful.
>
> - Supernitty nit: In section 7, the sentence
>
>   Additionally, confederations (as well as route reflectors), by
>   excluding different reachability information from consideration at
>   different locations in a confederation, have been shown [RFC 3365]
>   cause permanent oscillation between candidate routes when using the
>   tie breaking rules required by BGP [BGP-4].
>
> is missing the word "to" before the word "cause" in the next-to- 
> last line.....
>
> Implementation report nits:
>
> - It refers to BGP-4 as "work in progress". Should be updated to  
> existing BGP spec.
> - The document is unclear on whether it's an implementation report  
> for rfc3065bis (in header) or RFC 3065 (in normative references).  
> It should decide one way or the other - not that I think it  
> matters, given the apparent lack of technical changes.
>
> IDNits output:
>
> idnits 1.105
> tmp/draft-ietf-idr-rfc3065bis-05.txt:
>
>
>  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
>  * The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.
>       Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...
>
>  * Found RFC 3978 Section 5.4 paragraph 1 boilerplate (on line  
> 519), which
>    is fine, but *also* found RFC 2026 Section 10.4C paragraph 1  
> boilerplate
>    on line 36. It should be removed.
>  * There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the  
> longest one
>    being 1 character in excess of 72.
>
>  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id- 
> guidelines.txt:
>    Nothing found here (but these checks do not cover all of
>    1id-guidelines.txt yet).
>
>  Miscellaneous warnings:
>  - Line 332 has weird spacing: '... system  withi...'
>  - The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate,  
> even if
>    it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.    (The document does seem  
> to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
>    ID-Checklist requires).
>
>  Experimental warnings:
>  - Unused Reference: 'RFC 1771' is defined on line 443, but not  
> referenced
>  - Unused Reference: 'RFC 1863' is defined on line 446, but not  
> referenced
>  - Unused Reference: 'RFC 2119' is defined on line 449, but not  
> referenced
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art