Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-08

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Takeshi Takahashi
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was re-assigned to review this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
> Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> [overall feeling on this draft]
> ready
>
> [overview of the changes after the 05 draft] Many changes are made.
> Especially, this draft updates RFC4271, which anyway was cited in the normative reference section.
> Moreover, the "solution" section was removed, (especially, its 4th bullet was completely removed.) I believe the content became more mature.
> As mentioned before, I see no problem in this draft.


I just quickly wanted to thank you for your (repeated!) reviews.

Appreciated,
W


>
> Thank you.
> Take
>
>
>
>
> 2017-04-17 12:07 GMT+09:00 Takeshi Takahashi <[e-mail]>:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
>> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
>> These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security
>> area directors.
>> Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like
>> any other last call comments.
>>
>> [overall feeling on this draft]
>> ready
>>
>> [overview]
>> This document defines the default behavior of a BGP speaker when there
>> is no import or export policy associated with an External BGP session.
>>
>> This document is very concise.
>> I do not have any discussion issues.
>>
>> Thank you.
>> Take
>>
>
>
>



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf