[Idr] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-09

Nancy Cam-Winget via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 18 December 2020 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46F8B3A0B08; Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:24:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Nancy Cam-Winget via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param.all@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.24.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <160825465125.21464.15874080718333007730@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Nancy Cam-Winget <ncamwing@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 17:24:11 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/7ZyZ1Ajwv-4YJDyo9kcXyFL1Lfk>
Subject: [Idr] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-09
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 01:24:11 -0000

Reviewer: Nancy Cam-Winget
Review result: Ready

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document describes the allowance for the extended optional parameters in
BGP to be greater than 255.  As written, the document is straightforward and on
point. I only have an editorial nit and a suggestion.

Section 2: 1st sentence of the 7th paragraph "that in the..." Needs to be fixed.
Should it be: "that is in the..."?

- As new drafts need to include security and privacy considerations, I think it
would be good to just add in the security section (5) that it doesn't change
both underlying security or privacy issues as noted in RFC5272.