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

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

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