[Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc3392bis-04.txt

Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> Wed, 07 January 2009 12:47 UTC

Return-Path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-gen-art-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982C63A67DA; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 04:47:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB2E43A690A for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 04:47:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.346
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.346 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.253, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dlq9MDaehdge for <gen-art@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 04:47:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a.painless.aaisp.net.uk (d.5.0.d.2.7.e.f.f.f.8.4.0.3.2.0.0.3.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.b.8.0.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30:230:48ff:fe72:d05d]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9018E28C1B0 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 04:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 247.254.187.81.in-addr.arpa ([81.187.254.247]) by a.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>) id 1LKXn0-0003ga-QJ; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:45:39 +0000
Message-ID: <4964A50D.1020603@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:50:21 +0000
From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Reviwing Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Cc: jgs@juniper.net, idr-chairs@tools.ietf.org, iana@iana.org, idr-ads@tools.ietf.org, rchandra@sonoasystems.com
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-idr-rfc3392bis-04.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-rfc3392bis-04.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 6 January 2009
IESG Telechat date: 8 January 2009

Summary:
Ready for Draft Standard.  The points noted in the LC review of -02 have been
addressed.

Meta-issue:
Lack of IANA registry for parameter types in BGP OPEN messages:
This point was raised in the LC review and was agreed to be a matter for the ADs
to resolve - Amanda Baber of IANA may also be interested:

[Original note: .. after diligent
searching both in the RFCs and on the IANA web site, I believe that
neither the original BGP RFCs 1771/4671, RFC 3392 nor this draft define
a registry for the parameter types in OPEN messages.

Discussion with John Scudder subsequently:
>> IANA Considerations:  There does not appear to be a registry for OPEN message
(optional) parameter types!
>
> Appendix A of RFC 4271 notes that "Optional Parameter Type 1 (Authentication
Information) has been deprecated."  There was never a type 0.
OK.  Missed that.
>
> Regarding the lack of registry, that's a good observation but I don't think
it's within the scope of rfc3392bis to remedy, it seems like an RFC 4271 issue.
 Perhaps the IDR chairs and/or ADs can address this?  (As a practical matter I'd
be surprised if there were ever another OPEN optional parameter defined, but I
guess it might be worth fixing anyway.)
I am inclined to agree with your final point here.. and for that reason I
wouldn't worry too much if the registry was declared in this document (this
would not be the first time an oversight had been cleared up in this sort of
way) but as you say, this is a matter for the Chairs/ADs. ]



_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art