Subject: [Idr] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-24: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 06:12:07 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-24: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Linda Dunbar for the SECDIR review.

** Section 5.  Minor reframing of text

OLD
  Similarly to [RFC4456], this extension to BGP does not change the
   underlying security issues inherent in the existing IBGP.

NEW

This extension provides a new metric using additional information for computing
routes for BGP router reflectors.  While any improperly used metric could
impact the resiliency of the network, this extension does not change the
underlying security issues inherent in the existing IBGP per [RFC4456].

** Typos

-- Section 3. Typo. s/consists in using/consists of using/

-- Section 3.1.1.  Typo. s/can not/cannot/

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:37:42 +0200

Hi,

Thank you very much for the review.

I incorporated all editorial suggestions into the next -25 version.

Many thx,
Robert