From nobody Thu Apr 22 06:36:08 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1763A0744; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 06:36:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NlQ_xV_hxgQi; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 06:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63C093A0656; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 06:35:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:2c15:b00:a499:f10f] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:2c15:b00:a499:f10f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D4C0960033C; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:35:49 +0300 (EEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1619098549; bh=1pdYS386uIZBCjEebzD9elArv1ZKmVsaDRdqTXKTpfk=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=yD1Y7LirKhUmuoZeXxJUtonQsXICQVKbzgY/JgJy+BJvG7kCykz0UixwcYd6Bf5qx T1MqvzY01acqQbER4BlCxXXN0m0RYtoo8TqEtTnkFhquu9ypRH2cXIEqIlYQEo2PY9 e839X8LxgreDXS8etY7lTUNdo9Eojg5U6BaRPkBw= From: Lars Eggert Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1576C0D4-48FD-40BD-8860-2D74F6896BF4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\)) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:35:49 +0300 In-Reply-To: <161851524693.27672.11525659031465457077@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param.all@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org To: Christer Holmberg References: <161851524693.27672.11525659031465457077@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21) X-MailScanner-ID: D4C0960033C.A3AD6 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Idr] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11 X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org 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, 22 Apr 2021 13:36:02 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1576C0D4-48FD-40BD-8860-2D74F6896BF4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 = wrote: >=20 > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review result: Almost Ready >=20 > 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. >=20 > For more information, please see the FAQ at >=20 > . >=20 > 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 >=20 > 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. >=20 > Major issues: N/A >=20 > Minor issues: >=20 > 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. >=20 > Nits/editorial comments: >=20 > 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". >=20 > Q3: I suggest that Section 3 is renamed to "Backward Compatibility", = or > something like that. >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art --Apple-Mail=_1576C0D4-48FD-40BD-8860-2D74F6896BF4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIyBAEBCgAdFiEEmpq0ZpSoejRmyhheVLXDCb9wwVcFAmCBe7UACgkQVLXDCb9w wVddag/3Zdf5wBp6ATlqHY98A3nM0TewuC+RmV2gjTyAqqdSeugd77LkXEuuISY9 70N4LpquaTvITqVugwdI2QN/uE48peeoK+6hBQL//hKwBhwIdw/TvZ09vtokxQX1 n9oZkzZyclSrXUpFKPoRXJPzBRBIS5vHAuU2IWiC9Xuyx43eZj7L43H7600ccgy4 mEWkqnh8qU5ZT+RxUKrzfV1u+8S/eKznx4TSUcIIZhUUa5Tw/+NgxN3X0GkbNbPo /5YDUDT10Aq+ayyEHdYjE4yoLCZ/HiEkPo31e+8P7niySBfa+dniGVegKpquzjnX aQpysXyKVnws7L4HZQ0AOH/scXWM9iWuUZSmRcyhjQRHI0AYYc+xhpR9aM3egtYl x1/BPsv6TWMHE8DRTz9pTfaFEnQnJKcMlAGPcUxv2FZPVGeszK7TUce4yX9zE7sP Wu7oNZT7SefxYftS1KqlBKnGICZfwrbmO9ekDtLJm3aTcn6AHpjF8389pTDfama/ VzAFFYBOuQlYkz9M+CvA9wOgrz8I3prDaOZbzfFPV8yoDI/VETit7QXp/UhbsycI jXj5v1sxKX4FzH46qdlpkboh9TLth+kIIeL/fNA1Vt12+O4WIUqrURhQJyVW14FO XqmlKhRBRJpwY26ZG7fV7WeYNOuj8Yy7rZGUkVl0nfe0iWVxAw== =PYEv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1576C0D4-48FD-40BD-8860-2D74F6896BF4--