Subject: [sidr] AD review and progressing draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:50:41 -0500

As usual, I have done an AD review of draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02 before
progressing the draft.

a) Language around draft-ietf-idr-as-migration is more tentative than is
appropriate
when that draft and this are going to be RFCs.  Please clean that up.

b) In Sec 3.1, it says

"If the route now shows up as originating
   from AS64500, any downstream peers' validation check will fail unless
   a ROA is *also* available for AS64500 as the origin ASN, meaning that
   there will be overlapping ROAs until all routers originating prefixes
   from AS64510 are migrated to AS64500."

I think the second AS64500 should be AS64510.

c) Sec 4:  I think the first paragraph about not standardizing the
draft-ietf-idr-as-migration
can be removed now.

d)  In Sec 5.3, please replace or augment "current BGPSec specification"
with the reference.  After all, this draft will be part of BGPSec too.

e) In draft-ietf-idr-as-migration, the case of handling AS migration
in iBGP sessions is also covered.  I assume that because it is iBGP
sessions, there is no work to be done for BGPsec.  Could you please
add a quick obvious statement to that effect?

Otherwise, this looks like a fine draft.  Please do update the draft
during IETF Last Call.  I'll progress it to IETF Last Call and put it
on the Feb 19 telechat.

Thanks for the good work,

Alia

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:55:04 -0500

I forgot to not that RFC5398 is an informative reference.  The use of the
AS numbers for examples
doesn't have any effects on the technology to standardize.  Please do
update that as well.

Thanks,
Alia

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:

> e) In draft-ietf-idr-as-migration, the case of handling AS migration in iBGP sessions is also covered.  I assume that because it is iBGP sessions, there is no work to be done for BGPsec.  Could you please add a quick obvious statement to that effect?
>
>
> Otherwise, this looks like a fine draft.  Please do update the draft during IETF Last Call.  I'll progress it to IETF Last Call and put it on the Feb 19 telechat.
>
>