Russ Housley had suggested these changes (#1 and #2 below) as part of his
SecDir review.
But he also suggested to me to put it out on the mailing list so that
implementers in particular and anyone having an opinion can have a say.
Russ's comment:
Minor:
#1
In Section 3.2, the Signature Length within the Signature Segment does
not count the length field itself. It seems that all of the other
length values in this specification count the size of the length too.
Consistency will avoid implementation errors.
Russ's comment:
Minor:
#2
Section 2.1 says:
... The BGP speaker
sets this bit to 0 to indicate the capability to receive BGPsec
update messages. The BGP speaker sets this bit to 1 to indicate the
capability to send BGPsec update messages.
It seems a bit wasteful to repeat the whole capability for each
direction. Wouldn't it be better to follow the example used in
other capability definitions (such as RFC 7911) by using one of the
unassigned bits? The Send/Receive pair of bits would have these
semantics:
This field indicates whether the sender is (a) able to receive
BGPsec update messages from its peer (value 1), (b) able to send
BGPsec update messages to its peer (value 2), or (c) both (value 3)
for the address family identified in the AFI.
[Sriram] Observation: Two implementations exist and
they were shown to interoperate at the IETF-97 in Seoul.
The changes would cause those implementations to make code modifications.
Sriram
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
