Address-Prefix-Based Outbound Route Filter for BGP-4
RFC 5292

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

Comment (2008-06-04 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-16, Section 6., paragraph 0:
> 6. Operation

  I think all the SHOULDs in this section should be changed to MUSTs, or
  the document should to describe under which conditions it is
  appropriate to deviate from the SHOULDs.


draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-16, Section 6., paragraph 11:
>    The set of ORF entries that the speaker sends to the peer expresses
>    the speaker's local preference, that the peer MAY or MAY NOT decide
>    to honor.

  MAY NOT is not an RFC2119 terms - rephrase


draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-16, Section 4, paragraph 1:
>    [BGP-MP] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Rekhter, Y.,
>    "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", draft-ietf-idr-rfc1858bis-
>    10.txt.

  This means to cite 2858bis, now published as RFC4760.


draft-ietf-idr-bgp-prefix-orf-04, Section 4, paragraph 1:

>    [BGP-MP] Bates, T., Rekhter, Y., Chandra, R., and D. Katz,
>    "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 2858, June 2000.

  Obsoleted by RFC4760 - should probably cite the replacement.

(David Ward; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-06-04 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
From Tom Yu's SecDir review:

Should the document say that even if you send route filters to the
other end, you still need to apply the filters locally (even though
normally the other end won't send you routes that get filtered)? Or is
this obvious to most readers?

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-06-03 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
  From the Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-idr-route-filter-16 by
  Joel Halpern: I believe that the intention for removing ORF entries
  is that the remove request shall contain the full and exact ORF to
  be removed. However, the text merely refers to the "specified entry"
  without explicitly stating how it is specified.

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-06-05 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
The security considerations section in both documents is correct in noting "does not change
the underlying security issues" but lacks a reference to the unchanged information.  Please
add a reference to RFC 4271.