Telechat Review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-07
review-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-07-genart-telechat-worley-2017-05-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-06-06
Requested 2017-05-09
Authors Jared Mauch, Job Snijders, Greg Hankins
Draft last updated 2017-05-19
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Carlos Martínez (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Dale Worley (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Russ White (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -08 by Takeshi Takahashi
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Dale Worley (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Dale Worley
Assignment Reviewer Dale Worley 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-07-genart-telechat-worley-2017-05-19
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 08)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2017-05-19

Review
review-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-07-genart-telechat-worley-2017-05-19

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft.  The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by
the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document:  draft-ietf-grow-bgp-reject-07
Reviewer:  Dale R. Worley
Review Date:  2017-05-19
IETF LC End Date:  2017-04-18
IESG Telechat date:  2017-06-08

Summary:  This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits
that should be fixed before publication.

My knowledge of BGP is quite limited, so I cannot review the
desirability of this solution.  I assume that the routing and
operations community has fully considered that question.

   1. Introduction
			
   BGP routing security issues need to be addressed in order to make the
   Internet more stable.  Route leaks [RFC7908] are part of the problem,
   but software defects or operator misconfiguration can contribute too.
   This document updates [RFC4271] in order to improve the default level
   of Internet routing security.

This paragraph is a good introduction, but it isn't very cohesive.  I
suggest revising the third sentence to something like:

   This document updates [RFC4271] so that routes are neither imported
   nor exported unless specifically enabled by configuration, thus
   reducing route leaks, and so improving the default level of
   Internet routing security.

Then again, considering section 5 paragraph 1, perhaps this update
reduces all three causes (route leaks, software defects, and operator
misconfigurations), in which case you could say

   This document updates [RFC4271] so that routes are neither imported
   nor exported unless specifically enabled by configuration, thus
   reducing the consequences of these problems, and so improving the
   default level of Internet routing security.

--

   BGP speakers following this specification do not use or send routes
   on EBGP sessions, unless configured to do otherwise.

This sentence seems to be correct as written, but somehow it reads
awkwardly to me.  I think the problem is that "do otherwise" is used,
when the "otherwise" is "do not use ...".  I think it would read more
smoothly to say:

   BGP speakers following this specification do not use or send routes
   on EBGP sessions, unless specifically configured to do so.

Perhaps the Editor should be consulted about this.

--

   2.  Terminology

   [RFC4271] describes a Policy Information Base (PIB) which contains
   local policies that can be applied to the information in the Routing
   Information Base (RIB).  This document distinguishes the type of
   policy based on its application.

Here, you want to say "the type of a policy" or "the type of a
particular policy", because "policy" refers to a specific policy
within a set of policies, rather than being a mass noun.

   3. Changes to RFC4271	
				
   This section describes the Updates to [RFC4271] that define the
   default behavior of a BGP speaker when there are no Import or
   Export Policies associated with a particular EBGP session.

Of course, there is no need to capitalize "Updates".

The wording "describes the updates" is awkward.  Really, it lists or
specifies the updates, rather than describing them.  Also, the use of
"updates ... that ..." suggests that there is a larger set of updates
from which "the updates that define the default behavior" are
selected, and that smaller set will be described in this section.
Instead, there are updates, and those updates define the default
behavior.

So I think a better wording is:

   This section updates [RFC4271] to change the default behavior ...".

It's probably worth consulting the Edtior to see if a better wording
is possible.

--

   The following paragraph is added to Section 9.1 (Decision Process)
   after the fifth paragraph ending in "route aggregation and route
   information reduction":

Strictly, this says that there are five paragraphs which end in "route
aggregation and route information reduction", and the fifth of them is
being discussed.  The correct wording is 'the fifth paragraph, which
ends in "route aggregation and route information reduction"'.

   The following paragraph is added to Section 9.1.3 (Phase 3: Route
   Dissemination) after the third paragraph ending in "by means of an
   UPDATE message (see 9.2).":

Similarly, this should be 'the third paragraph, which ends in "by
means of an UPDATE message (see 9.2)."'

   5. Security Considerations	

   Permissive default routing policies can result in inadvertent effects	
   such as route leaks [RFC7908], in general resulting in rerouting of	
   traffic through an unexpected path.

The word "rerouting" emphasizes that the traffic's route has been
changed, whereas I think the problem you are concerned with is simply
that the traffic is routed through an unexpected path.  That suggests
changing "rerouting" to "routing".

Then again, perhaps routing people always conceptualize an incorrect
route as a change from an expected or correct route, in which case
"rerouting" is the best word to use.

   Appendix A.  Transition Considerations

   It is anticipated that transitioning to a compliant BGP
   implementation will require a process thay may take several years.

You probably want to s/a compliant BGP implementation/compliant BGP
implementations/, unless you are describing the process for an
individual operator, not for all operators collectively.

   A.1. N+1 N+2 Release Strategy	

   An implementer could leverage an approach described as "the N+1 and	
   N+2 release strategy".

I prefer reducing the words within the quotation marks.  (But probably
it's best to ask the Editor.)  That would give:

   An implementer could leverage an approach described as the "N+1 and	
   N+2" release strategy.

The section title is difficult to understand without context.  I
suggest revising it in a way that parallels the way you use the term
in the text of the section, such as:

   A.1. Using an "N+1 and N+2" Release Strategy	

This conveys the maximum possible amount of information to a reader
(like me) who doesn't know what the "N+1 and N+2" strategy is, namely
that there is a known release strategy with the name "N+1 and N+2",
and that the section describes how to use it in this context (and
hopefully, defines it as well). -- (All of which expectations are
met.)

   "ebgp insecure-mode"

I think that in this phrase, "ebgp insecure" modifies "mode", and so
it would be written "ebgp-insecure mode".  (As opposed to "ebgp"
modifying "insecure mode", in which case it would indeed be written
"ebgp insecure-mode".)

[END]