I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>
Document: draft-ietf-opsec-bgp-security-05.txt
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 12 September 2014
IETF LC End Date: 22 September 2014
IETF Telechat Date: N/A
Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready
for publication. However, there are some minor editorial nits that I suggest
the authors to address.
Major Issues: None
Minor Issues: None
Editorial nits:
General:
QG_1: Please be consistent on whether you write both the RFC- and the
reference number, or only the reference number. For example, in section 4 you
write "see RFC6192 [18]." and in section 5 "documented in [26].".
Section 1:
Q1_1: Please expand the BGP abbreviation on first occurrence (outside the
Abstract).
Q1_2: The second sentence starts with "This protocol does not directly...".
It is a little unclear what "This" refers to. Assuming you refer to BGP, I
suggest you say "BGP does not directly...".
Section 4:
Q_4_1: In the first paragraph, why is "should" be with small letters?
Q_4_2: The last sentence says "For a more detailed recommendation, see RFC6192
[18].". Recommendation on what?
Section 5:
Q_5_1: The name of section 5 uses "BGP sessions", but the
section text does not say anything about BGP sessions. And, in section 5.1 you
only talk about "TCP sessions used by BGP". Only in section 5.2 do you mention
"BGP session". Perhaps you should add some general text to section 5 about BGP
sessions, how TCP is used to transport BGP messages in BGP sessions etc, and
then in section 5.1 only talk about protection of TCP.
Section 15:
Q_15_1: s/"about about"/"about"
Q_15_2: s/"It will not"/"It does not"
Regards,
Christer
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
