Early Review of draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02
review-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02-rtgdir-early-patel-2015-01-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2015-01-26
Requested 2014-12-08
Authors Wesley George, Sandra Murphy
Draft last updated 2015-01-26
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Susan Hares (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Keyur Patel (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Wassim Haddad
Assignment Reviewer Keyur Patel 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02-rtgdir-early-patel-2015-01-26
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 06)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2015-01-26

Review
review-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02-rtgdir-early-patel-2015-01-26






Hello,










I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review,
 and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

.










Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve
 them through discussion or by updating the draft.










Document: draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-02




Reviewer: Keyur Patel




Review Date: 14-Jan-2015




Intended Status: Standards Track













Summary:




No major issues found. Minor nits are listed below. This document is ready for publication.










Comments:




IMHO, the document is well written and easily understood.










Major Issues:




None.










Minor Issues




None.










Nits:










Section 2, General Scenario: Replace : Confederations RFC 5065 [RFC5065] are 


not

 being implemented between the ASNs with : BGP AS Confederation RFC 5065 [RFC5065] is not enabled between ASNs.

Section 2, General Scenario: For Line starting with (2nd paragraph): "In the following examples”, please list the section number where these examples are described (Section 4).

Section 3: Can we replace the reference of companies with SPs?

Section 3.1: Replace : Overlapping ROAs with multiple ROAs (its not overlapping ROAs its multiple ROAs showing different ASes owning originating prefixes)

Section 3.2.1: Isn’t the problem of increased ASPATH length explained in section 3.2.2 applicable to 3.2.1? If so can reference it in 3.2.1 as well?

Section 5.2:  Can we refer to the fact that this is the only case where an extra signing is done for before sending an update to an IBGP session?




Regards,




Keyur