Re: [Idr] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-24: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thank you very much for the review.

I incorporated all editorial suggestions into the next -25 version.

Many thx,
Robert


On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 3:12 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-24: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you to Linda Dunbar for the SECDIR review.
>
> ** Section 5.  Minor reframing of text
>
> OLD
>   Similarly to [RFC4456], this extension to BGP does not change the
>    underlying security issues inherent in the existing IBGP.
>
> NEW
>
> This extension provides a new metric using additional information for
> computing
> routes for BGP router reflectors.  While any improperly used metric could
> impact the resiliency of the network, this extension does not change the
> underlying security issues inherent in the existing IBGP per [RFC4456].
>
> ** Typos
>
> -- Section 3. Typo. s/consists in using/consists of using/
>
> -- Section 3.1.1.  Typo. s/can not/cannot/
>
>
>
>