Re: [Idr] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Christer, thank you for your review . I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document.

Lars


> On 2021-4-15, at 22:34, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review result: Almost Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review Date: 2021-04-15
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-04-09
> IESG Telechat date: 2021-04-22
> 
> Summary: The document is easy to read, and I have no technical issues. However,
> I do have a minor question, and a couple of editorial suggestions, that I'd
> like the authors to address.
> 
> Major issues: N/A
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Q1: As far as I understand, the document only defines a new BGP OPEN Optional
> Parameter Type, but does not modify/add procedures in RFC 4271. So, is the
> document really an update to RFC 4271? And, when reading RFC 5429, I cannot
> find any text saying that new parameter types would require an update to RFC
> 4271. I also looked at a few other RFCs that add new values to the BGP IANA
> registry, and they were not updating any RFC.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Q2: I suggest that Section 2 is renamed to  "New Optional Parameter Type code",
> or something like that. OR, if the document really is updating RFC 4271,
> perhaps "Update to RFC 4271".
> 
> Q3: I suggest that Section 3 is renamed to "Backward Compatibility", or
> something like that.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art