[Idr] Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-14: (with COMMENT)

[Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>]

Thank you.  And apologies for doing my ballot in two parts.

Deb

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:44 PM Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Deb,
>
>
>
> Please see inline (DR#)
>
>
>
> *From: *Deb Cooley via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 18, 2025 at 6:25 AM
> *To: *The IESG <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, Clarence Filsfils (cfilsfil) <
> [e-mail]>, luay.jalil <[e-mail]>, yitai.syc <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>,
> im8327 <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-14: (with
> COMMENT)
>
> Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-14: 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-car/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you to Yoav Nir for his secdir review.
>
> old (and they have been addressed)
> --------------------------
> These are definitely nits:
>
> Section 1.1, abbreviations:  Alphabetize the list?  Please add NLRI,
> (what is
> the 'I' in AFI/SAFI?)
>
> Section 2.9:  In this section there is a mix of field definitions that
> either
> define the length of the field plus a description of the contents, or just
> a
> description of the contents.  For example, 2.9.1 key length states a 1
> octet
> field etc. but 2.9.2.1 length states 'variable, MUST be a multiple of 3.
> Since
> there are ascii art figures of the actual packet fields, maybe this isn't
> confusing.  Consider listing the field length where it is reasonable.
> -------------------
> new.  (apologies)
>
> Section 12, para 1:  This seems like a weird way to state that the security
> considerations and issues haven't changed.  If it is true that adding
> these new
> definitions, please explain why they don't change the security
> considerations.
> (if the following paragraphs explain this situation, please reorganize
> them to
> make it more obvious).
>
> DR# We’ll fix the text to separate the point that existing considerations
> are not changed, and the considerations w.r.t the new SAFI, which are
> described further in the following paragraphs.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Dhananjaya
>
>
>
>
>
>