Note: I am going to ask the authors to change draft name to:
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-inter-as-topology-ext
Version: -18
status: - Waiting for WG LC, -19 needed prior to WG LC
next steps:
Aijun publishes -19 with changed security section
Aijun double checks the implementation page at:
https://wiki.ietf.org/group/idr/implementations/draft-ietf-idr-bgpls-inter-as-topology-ext
IDR chair will request early directorate review
IDR chair will request IDR Chair review
If IDR Chair Review has no commets, we'll start WG LC on 1/9/2026
If IDR Chair Review has comments, then I'll post the comments to
the shepherd review page.
Security section needs to consider that the
Stub Link, and the characteristics of the Stub link
are critical information.
Suggested text at end of Security section.
old text:/
Using the passive-interface features or configuring the
Traffic Engineering (TE) parameters on the interconnect links will
not provide the real-time Information for this single Administrative
Domain./
new text:/
The single Administrative domain consisting of two AS passing
information about the Stub-link characteristics does not
cause problems within a "walled garden". However, the
Stub-link NLRI and characteristics (Link/local identifier,
IPv4 Interface Address, IPv4 Neighbor Address,
IPv6 interface Address, IPv6 Neighbor Address,
Multi-topology Identifier, Remote-AS Number,
IPv4 Remote ASBRI ID, and IPv6 Remote ASBR ID)
are critical information to a network.
As such, operators should handle this critical
information in a way that restricts it to the
walled garden. /