Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs-11.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 15:46:44 +0200

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-sidr-bgpsec-reqs-11.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20140703
IETF LC End Date: 20140703
IESG Telechat date: 20140710

Summary: Ready for nits

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - Abstract page 1 and 1 page 2: only BGP is a well known abbrev,
  AS or RPKI are not, now it is only a formal concern as anybody
  with some interest in reading this document not only should know
  these abbrevs but should expect to get them as abbrevs only...

 - 3 pages 3 and 4: I have a concern about the "must" keyword
  in lower case: I know it is allowed but it is clearly ambiguous
  (BTW it is not a real problem for this kind of documents, just
   not the best example for writers)

 - 3 3.1 page 3: posessed -> possessed

 - 3 3.1 page 3: wording
  authority to announce the prefix in the announcement.
               ^^^^^^^^                   ^^^^^^^^

 - 3 3.6 page 3 and 4 4.4 page 6: i.e. -> i.e.,

 - 3 3.7 (twice), 3.11 page 4 and 4 4.3 page 6: need -> needs

 - 3 3.9 page 4: ASNs -> AS numbers

 - 3 3.10 page 4: AS-SETs -> AS_SETs (or AS SETs)

 - 3 3.14 page 4: wording (I had to read the 3.14 multiple times
  to understand it)

 - 3 3.18 page 5: wording (I suggest)
  customer, and provider relationships -> customer / provider relationship

 - 6 page 5: e.g. -> e.g.,

 - Authors' Addresses page 8 (twice): US -> USA
  (both because it is the right name in the postal system, and
   it is used by the third author :-)

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 23:32:05 +0900

thanks for the review, francis.  i will hack as soon as the ads|chairs
say it is time to do so.

randy

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 16:50:43 +0300

Thanks for the review also from my side, Francis, and thank you Randy for tracking the editorial issues. I have balloted no-obj for today’s IESG telechat on this document.

Jari

On 09 Jul 2014, at 17:32, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 08:03:47 +0900

>  - 3 3.7 (twice), 3.11 page 4 and 4 4.3 page 6: need -> needs

i believe that "x need not do y" is correct, so will leave it to the
rfced if you will indulge

>  - 3 3.14 page 4: wording (I had to read the 3.14 multiple times

how about

  While the formal validity of a routing announcement should be
  determined by the BGPsec protocol, local routing policy MUST
  be the final arbiter of best path and other routing
  decisions.

randy

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:53:19 +0200

>  rfced if you will indulge

=> you are the native English writer (:-). Anyway the RFC Editor
could fix it if needed...

>    be the final arbiter of best path and other routing

=> far better!

Regards

PS: I apologize for the delay: I am back from a very long week-end
(with the Bastille day...)