Robert, thanks for your review. It appears that your concerns have been addressed in -20 (thanks, authors!). I have entered a No Objection ballot.
Alissa > On Feb 19, 2018, at 10:59 AM, Robert Sparks <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review result: Almost Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-bier-ospf-bier-extensions-12 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 2018-02-19 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-22 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-02-22 > > Summary: Almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC > > Major issue: > The security considerations section is essentially empty (what it currently > says reduces to "don't let malformed packets crash your implementation". > Surely > there's more to say here. Is there an assumption that, in any given > deployment, > the administrators of the bier layer and the ospf layer are the same people, > and have the same authority? If so, it's probably worth saying so. If not, are > there edges to discuss? If this document really doesn't introduce any new > security considerations, it should argue why that's the case. > > Minor issues: > Is there a reason not to use the example/documentation IPV4 address ranges? > (See the shepherd writeup). The author count is above the current > RFC-Editor/IESG recommendations. Work that out with your ADs. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
