> On 16 May 2023, at 10:25, Peter Psenak <ppsenak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yoav, > > thanks for comments, please see inline: > > > On 15/05/2023 21:36, Yoav Nir via Datatracker wrote: >> Reviewer: Yoav Nir >> Review result: Has Nits >> Hi. >> 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. >> I am no expert on routing in general or IGP flex algorithms in particular. That >> said, I found the Abstract and Introduction jarring. The first paragraph of the >> Abstract would be better as part of the introduction than the abstract. > > I moved the first paragraph from Abstract to Introduction. Sounds good. > >> The Security Considerations section seems mostly copy-pasted from RFC 9350 with >> mild editing. The substance may be correct - that the only new attack possible >> is suppressing reachability for a prefix, but I think only the second paragraph >> is necessary for that. > > I would prefer to keep the first paragraph. OK. Yoav -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
