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>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-bess-orf-covering-prefixes-03 Reviewer: David Black Review Date: Feb 13, 2015 IETF LC End Date: Feb 18, 2015 Summary: Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to review this draft. This draft is esoteric - it's written by BGP/MPLS VPN experts for BGP/MPLS experts and is effectively unintelligible in the absence of BGP/MPLS VPN expertise. I'm not a BGP/MPLS expert, but this is the first time in my many years of Gen-ART reviewing that I've had to use the "don't have the expertise" summary status. The draft's writing style is inaccessible. A simple example is that one would expect that a draft whose title is "Covering Prefixes Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4" would explain what a "Covering Prefix" is - this draft never does that. Much of the draft is nearly opaque lists of requirements and processing rules, with little if any design explanation or rationale for why they are that way and what they accomplish. This is exacerbated by presence of a number of acronyms that are not expanded on first use. Overall, I really can't figure out what's going on in this draft, so I have to trust that the WG got it right, I hope. That's disappointing. I do have one minor editorial suggestion: The security considerations section cites BGP security considerations in existing RFCs. It should also cite VPN security considerations in existing RFCs, as those are more important for a draft that is only applicable to VPNs. idnits 2.13.01 didn't find anything to complain about. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 david.black@xxxxxxx Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ----------------------------------------------------