|
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
First a question (I don't know if this should lead to a change in
the document). You say the use of reserved ASNs is NOT RECOMMENDED
and later that the attribute MUST NOT be considered malformed if
it has a reserved ASN in it. Is it clear what a recipient is
supposed to do if one of these reserved ANSs shows up here? If so
(for my own education) could you point me to where that's
described? Nits: Section 11.3 in the references is only referenced by the implementation status section which you instruct the rfc-editor to delete. Do you intend for the reference to also be deleted? If so, save yourself a round-trip with the RFC-editor and add instructions now. If not, you'll need to find a way to work a reference in that won't be deleted. David Farmer makes a suggestion at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/wHOtQfblIiTPqqXsgcGHZOfMQ_s that looks reasonable to me. Please consider it. The security consideration section start out with a sentence that strongly implies the reader might learn something about the security considerations for this document by reading RFC1997. That document's security considerations section says only that "Security issues are not discussed in this memo." I suggest simply deleting this first sentence. Please also consider if there are other BGP documents with substantive security considerations sections that you can point to instead. |