Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-13.txt

From: Tomonori TAKEDA <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:21:37 +0900

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. The purpose
of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more
information about the Routing Directorate, please see
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html

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-idr-bgp-identifier-13.txt
Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda
Review Date: 22 April 2011
IETF LC End Date: 18 April 2011
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before publication.

Comments:
This document is short, clearly written and easy to understand. I have
one minor comment that should be clarified.

o Major Issues:
No major issues found.

o Minor Issues:
Section 3:

It says,

   In addition to the OPEN message, the BGP Identifier is currently also
   used in the following areas:
   ...
     o In the Route Reflection (in lieu of the Cluster-id) within an
       AS, where only the BGP Identifier of an internal neighbor may
       be propagated in the route reflection related attributes.

I am a bit confused about "in lieu of the Cluster-id". My reading of
this text is that the BGP Identifier is used in CLUSTER_ID attribute in
the Route Reflection, which is not usually correct.

I guess text should be (by removing "in lieu of the Cluster-id") :

   In addition to the OPEN message, the BGP Identifier is currently also
   used in the following areas:
   ...
     o In the Route Reflection within an AS, where only the BGP
       Identifier of an internal neighbor may be propagated in the route
       reflection related attributes.

or something like this.

o Nits:
None.

Thanks,
Tomonori