Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-12

Roni Even <> Thu, 15 December 2016 13:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D69C5129DA8; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 05:05:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roni Even <>
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-12
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.39.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 05:05:36 -0800
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:05:37 -0000

Reviewer: Roni Even
Review result: Almost Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-12
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2016-12-15
IETF LC End Date: 2016–12-22
IESG Telechat date:  

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a BCP RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

I think the document need an editorial review, a lot of text in
passive language, for example third paragraph in section 1
"BGPsec needs to be spoken only by an AS's eBGP speaking, AKA border,
routers, and is designed so that it can be used to protect 
announcements which are originated by resource constrained edge 
routers." is written in passive language and it is also a long