[Idr] Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-13: (with COMMENT)

["Dhananjaya Rao (dhrao)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Deb,

Thank you for your review. Please see inline (DR#) for responses.

From: Deb Cooley via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 at 5:54 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-13: (with COMMENT)
Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-car-13: 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.

DR# Concur.

These are definitely nits:

Section 1.1, abbreviations:  Alphabetize the list?  Please add NLRI,  (what is
the 'I' in AFI/SAFI?)

DR# Will fix all of these in the next rev.

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.

DR# Section 2.9.1/2.9.2 contain generic definitions; hence the field length is specified for common fields.
DR# Section 2.9.2.1 and similar ones describe the specific instances; hence they don’t specify the field length where it would be repetitive, but instead specify the actual values or restrictions on them.
Regards,
-Dhananjaya