[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-13

<david.black@emc.com> Tue, 19 April 2011 22:38 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1846E0675 for <gen-art@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hzLZF6stlQCb for <gen-art@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F23A9E0673 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si04.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI04.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.24]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p3JMcpn5006379 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:38:51 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd04.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.226]) by hop04-l1d11-si04.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:38:43 -0400
Received: from mxhub24.corp.emc.com (mxhub24.corp.emc.com [128.221.56.110]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p3JMbCjt009786; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:37:12 -0400
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.209]) by mxhub24.corp.emc.com ([128.221.56.110]) with mapi; Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:37:12 -0400
From: david.black@emc.com
To: enkechen@cisco.com, jenny@cisco.com, gen-art@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 18:37:10 -0400
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-13
Thread-Index: Acv+4lJhFlOYRcpaQmavfYTdUEyXVw==
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E04173721E0@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Cc: jgs@juniper.net, stbryant@cisco.com
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-13
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:38:54 -0000

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
david.black@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------