[Idr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-09: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-flex-algo-09: 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-ls-flex-algo/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this document, I found it easy to review (I'm sure it helped
that I've recently reviewed draft-ietf-lsr-flex-algo).  I have just a
few comments.

1. In the Security Considerations section, we have

   The TLVs introduced in this document are used to propagate the IGP
   Flexible Algorithm extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo].
   It is assumed that the IGP instances originating these TLVs will
   support all the required security (as described in
   [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo]) to prevent any security issues when
   propagating the TLVs into BGP-LS.

Apart from my usual complaint :-| that "prevent any security issues"
is a notably broad claim, I also have the concern that it isn't clear
to me what's really being gotten at.

Maybe you're saying something like "The Security Considerations section
of [I-D.ietf-lsr-flex-algo] discusses potential issues related to
Flexible Algorithm deployment", in which case just saying that would
seem sufficient (although you don't have to, IMO).  It seems to me that
this document need only address new issues -- if any -- that might
arise specifically as a result of propagating the information from the
IGP into BGP-LS.

If it were me I'd probably just remove this paragraph.

Nits:

2. Abstract: "Flexible Algorithm definition" should be "Flexible
   Algorithm Definition" (uppercase D).

3. Various: "ISIS" should be "IS-IS" throughout unless there's
   some specific reason for the variant spelling.