Re: [Idr] Shpehrd of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04.txt - shepherd review

"Susan Hares" <> Thu, 12 September 2019 07:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9841200CE for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 00:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.348
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MvgIfwDPdYm6 for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 00:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D09B12007A for <>; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 00:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 03:16:01 -0400
Message-ID: <015c01d56939$ef3dba30$cdb92e90$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_015D_01D56918.682E8B30"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdVpOc4tEukZlgofSe2Oexhnv5o8fA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 190911-2, 09/11/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Shpehrd of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04.txt - shepherd review
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 07:16:14 -0000

Just in case you cannot interpret the title - this is the shepherd report. 

It's early and my fingers stumbled (smile). 




From: Susan Hares [] 
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 3:02 AM
Cc: 'John Scudder'; 'Job Snijders'
Subject: Shpehrd of draft-ietf-idr-rfc8203bis-04.txt 


Job, Jacob, John,  Alex: 


I have reviewed draft-ietf-ider-rfc8203bis-04.txt in preparation 

For sending this document to the IESG for publication.  

I've included my comments in two forms: 

Required Changes and Editorial suggestions. 


I've asked for OPS-DIR and RTG-DIR early review of 

this draft.    Please consider submitting the required 

text changes in a -05.txt version so the 

early reviews can move swiftly. 


Susan Hares 



Shepherd's Required Changes prior to submission: 


IN section: 5.  IANA Considerations 


Old:  /Cease Notification message subcodes/

New: /BGP Cease NOTIFICATION message subcodes/


Why: registry name at:

is incorrectly provided in the text. 


Shepherd's Editorial suggestion: 

Location:  Page 3: Section 6 Security considerations

Paragraph 3, last sentence 


Text:/ Refer to the
   related considerations in 
[RFC4271 <> ] and [RFC4272
<> ]./ 


I understand why you point to [RFC4272], but what related

considerations are you examining in [RFC4271]. 


I suggest adding a section in [RFC4271] that you wish to refer to. 

The form could be 


New text:/ Refer to the
   related considerations in 
[RFC4271 <> ] (section x.x) and [RFC4272
<> ]./