[Idr] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-08: (with COMMENT)

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

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sbfd-extensions-08: 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-sbfd-extensions/



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

Like Lars, I also found the author list to be fairly remarkable, almost one
author per page. Many hands make light work, they say.

There is one sentence in the Security Considerations section that I think
overpromises:

                                                  The IGP instances
   originating this information are assumed to support any required
   security and authentication mechanisms (as described in [RFC7883] and
   [RFC7883]) to prevent any security issues when propagating the
   information into BGP-LS.

"To prevent *any* security issues" is quite a promise! I'm sure it's not what
you mean, I expect you mean something more like "and therefore the security
properties of those underlying mechanisms are assumed". Probably if you just
dropped everything from there on, so just ended with "[RFC7883])" the text
would be complete and accurate.