Subject: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid-14

From: Magnus Nystrom via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 20:09:50 -0700

Reviewer: Magnus Nystrom
Review result: Has Nits

I was asked to re-review -14 after my review of -13. I'd like to thank the
authors for making updates based on my review of -13. The only additional
suggestion I have is to ad a clarifying statement after the sentence "If the
condition of the peer is unknown, the rule SHOULD not be enforced" along the
lines of "As mentioned above, this does represent a security risk."

---

From: "Juan Alcaide (jalcaide)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 18:31:44 +0000

Thanks Magnus,

Based on several feedback, I plan to modify that paragraph as:

"
   If configuration (or other means beyond the scope of this document) 
indicates that the peer is not a route server, that optional rule 
SHOULD be enforced. If the indication is that the peer is not a route server or there is no conclusive indication, that optional rule SHOULD NOT be enforced.
"

Hope it's good

-J

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Nystrom via Datatracker <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 5:10 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-flowspec-oid-14

Reviewer: Magnus Nystrom
Review result: Has Nits

I was asked to re-review -14 after my review of -13. I'd like to thank the authors for making updates based on my review of -13. The only additional suggestion I have is to ad a clarifying statement after the sentence "If the condition of the peer is unknown, the rule SHOULD not be enforced" along the lines of "As mentioned above, this does represent a security risk."