Hi!
I'm swapping with John and stepping in as the responsible AD for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer. I performed an AD review on
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer-10. Thanks for this document. My feedback is
as follows:
** idnits reports:
-- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you
have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
(See the Legal Provisions document at
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)
Have the original authors been contact or should the alternative boilerplate be
used?
** Section 3.1
The following optional session attributes for each connection are
added to Section 8, before "The state session attribute indicates the
current state of the BGP FSM":
The placement of this (14) and (15) doesn’t seem accurate. The (1) – (8) list
preceding the sentence “The state session attribute indicates the current state
of the BGP FSM" in Section 8 of RFC4271 lists mandatory attributes (which the
attribute described in this document is not).
It seems like the (14) and (15) from this document should be added to the end
of the “(1) – (13) list” that occurs after the text “The optional Session
attributes are listed below”.
** Section 3.3
- logs an error message in the local system with the BGP Error
Code "Send Hold Timer Expired",
Is this step mandatory?
** Section 3.4
Section 10 of [RFC4271] summarizes BGP Timers. This document adds
another BGP timer: SendHoldTimer.
This text, unlike prior text, isn’t explicit in saying where the new text is
being inserted in Section 10 of RFC4271.
** Section 6.
This documents suggests that an attempt to send a
NOTIFICATION message with the "Send Hold Timer Expired" error code is
still made,
What does “suggests” mean?
** Section 7
This specification does not change BGP's security characteristics.
Doesn’t it improve the resilience of the BGP model by allowing consistent
termination of peers (i.e., improved availability of the global network)?
Regards,
Roman
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
