I forgot to not that RFC5398 is an informative reference. The use of the AS numbers for examples doesn't have any effects on the technology to standardize. Please do update that as well.
Thanks, Alia On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > As usual, I have done an AD review of draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02 > before > progressing the draft. > > a) Language around draft-ietf-idr-as-migration is more tentative than is > appropriate > when that draft and this are going to be RFCs. Please clean that up. > > b) In Sec 3.1, it says > > "If the route now shows up as originating > from AS64500, any downstream peers' validation check will fail unless > a ROA is *also* available for AS64500 as the origin ASN, meaning that > there will be overlapping ROAs until all routers originating prefixes > from AS64510 are migrated to AS64500." > > I think the second AS64500 should be AS64510. > > c) Sec 4: I think the first paragraph about not standardizing the > draft-ietf-idr-as-migration > can be removed now. > > d) In Sec 5.3, please replace or augment "current BGPSec specification" > with the reference. After all, this draft will be part of BGPSec too. > > > e) In draft-ietf-idr-as-migration, the case of handling AS migration in iBGP > sessions is also covered. I assume that because it is iBGP sessions, there > is no work to be done for BGPsec. Could you please add a quick obvious > statement to that effect? > > > Otherwise, this looks like a fine draft. Please do update the draft during > IETF Last Call. I'll progress it to IETF Last Call and put it on the Feb 19 > telechat. > > > Thanks for the good work, > > Alia > >
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
