BGP Route Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP (IBGP)
draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-02

[Ballot comment]
I originally entered the following discuss.  There is question within
the IESG about whether this is actually the requirement or not.  I
don't want to block this document indefinitely while we answer general
questions.

All the implementations that sent in implementation report forms
claimed to test against Cisco and Juniper.  However as far as I can
see reading the document Cisco and Juniper did not actually fill out
the form.

I think you need to have two implementations who both participate in
the implementation report interoperate.


I'm willing to be convinced that this is not a requirement, but it
does significantly concern me that none of the implementations in the
implementation report tested against each other.

Jeff offered testing over a tunnel, but I don't think anyone else has taken him up on it.  Going back to the IESG to see if we can move forward without this.

Subject: RFC 2796bis implementation report question
Date: Thu, Jan 12 09:17:16
To: brian.winger@alcatel.com,draut@TiMetraNetworks.com,jhaas@nexthop.com,jenny@redback.com
Cc: enkechen@cisco.com,yakov@juniper.net,skh@nexthop.com,zinin@psg.com

[Ballot comment]
First, I share Sam's DISCUSS concern.
No need to hold 2 discusses on that.

Citation/Reference [7] (i.e. RFC2119) must be a
Normative Reference.

$ idnits draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-01.txt
idnits 1.77 (21 Aug 2005)

draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-01.txt:


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  * The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.
  * Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. Better change to RFC
    3978/3979.

[Ballot comment]
This comment replies to the document only citing RFC2385 in the Security
Considerations.  That section should now also cite the BGPbis spec, because
that has expanded the security considerations for BGP - although there's still
a lot of emphasis on 2385, it is able as well to point to draft-ietf-bgp-vuln.
Discussing the risks well is a big step forward.  If noone in the IESG objects to
the DS of RFC2796 making a textual departure (I don't), then RFC2796 should
directly cite draft-ietf-bgp-vuln.  Sometimes there's a formalistic requirement
to change very few words from PS to DS.

[Ballot comment]
From Gen-ART review by Lakshimnath Dondeti:

...
2. ROUTER_ID is now referred to as BGP Identifier.  Both terms have been around for a long while now.  Perhaps the authors should explain what they have in mind in changing that term.
...
4. Editorial Nit:  Replace  "With the existing BGP model," in Page 3 with something like "In BGP-4"

[Ballot discuss]
From Gen-ART review by Lakshimnath Dondeti:

1. 2796 contains a format for encoding CLUSTER_LISTs which is not present in 2796bis.  Perhaps there should be an explanation as to why that is not necessary.
...
3. The security considerations section points to Ref[5], which if still correct refers to an RFC published in 1998 to use MD5 and that RFC (2385) says
"This document defines a weak but currently practiced security
  mechanism for BGP.  It is anticipated that future work will provide
  different stronger mechanisms for dealing with these issues."
At the risk of annoying the authors, I wonder if nothing has changed in the past 7 years to prompt an update to the Security Considerations section.

[Ballot comment]
Citation/Reference [7] (i.e. RFC2119) must be a
Normative Reference.

$ idnits draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-01.txt
idnits 1.77 (21 Aug 2005)

draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-01.txt:


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  * The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.
  * Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. Better change to RFC
    3978/3979.

[Ballot comment]
Citation [7] (i.e. RFC2119) must be Normative Reference.

$ idnits draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-01.txt
idnits 1.77 (21 Aug 2005)

draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-01.txt:


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  * The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.
  * Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. Better change to RFC
    3978/3979.

[Ballot comment]
$ idnits draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-01.txt
idnits 1.77 (21 Aug 2005)

draft-ietf-idr-rfc2796bis-01.txt:


  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
  * The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.
  * Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. Better change to RFC
    3978/3979.

[Ballot discuss]
All the implementations that sent in implementation report forms
claimed to test against Cisco and Juniper.  However as far as I can
see reading the document Cisco and Juniper did not actually fill out
the form.

I think you need to have two implementations who both participate in
the implementation report interoperate.


I'm willing to be convinced that this is not a requirement, but it
does significantly concern me that none of the implementations in the
implementation report tested against each other.

[Ballot discuss]
The Introduction indicates that this document will obsolete RFC 2796
  and RFC 1966.  The title page header and the abstract also need to
  provide this information.