Either way is fine. The document is scheduled for the Telechat on Dec/15. I expect maybe a couple of directorate reviews before that – if they come in by Dec/9 and you have time to pdate, then please do. Otherwise, let’s wait for the IESG to comment.
Thanks! Alvaro. On 11/13/16, 4:25 PM, "Randy Bush" <ra...@psg.com<mailto:ra...@psg.com>> wrote: C1. The reference to rfc7607 should be Informative. C2. [Major] Security Considerations. I think that there is one consideration that should be mentioned in this section: Given that the largest value is preferred (2 = invalid), there is an attack vector where a router in the path (yes, even an internal router) can inject a community indicating that the route is invalid; the communities are not protected. This action could result in inconsistent routing or in even a DoS. I know the document is not explicit about what to do with the validation state (which is ok), but the clear intention (from rfc6811 and rfc7115) is that it will be used to make routing decisions. Please add some text about this potential issue. would you prefer a revision soon, or wait for other iesg comments? randhy
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
