[Idr] Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-36: (with COMMENT)

[Deb Cooley via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct-36: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ct/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Many thanks to Magnus Nyström for his three secdir reviews.

Section 14, para 1:  The 'walled garden' approach is not mentioned anywhere
else in the draft.  From the Yoav Nir's secdir review of the idr-bgp-car draft
(where similar language was removed):

    " a) Does the security text provide an adequate description of the formation
     of the "walled garden" via BGP TCP security, address considerations,
     preventing DOS service attacks, and strong BGP security (BGP origin and
     BGPsec).

     b) does the security text provide an adequate description of how to detect
     if traffic goes outside of the "walled garden"? "