draft-ietf-rpsec-routing-threats-03.txt

[hardie@qualcomm.com]

Comment:

The definition of threat wavers between "an adversary" and
the "opportunity for an adversary to hurt you"; this is
especially true in Section 3.1  Consistency here seems 
pretty important.

In 3.1.2, this definition is given: "Blackhole: large amounts of traffic 
are directed to be forwarded through one router that cannot handle 
the increased level of traffic and drops many/most/all packets".
I thought the aim here was to describe consequences,not how they
are achieved.  The consequence here seems to be "packets go in,
but go nowhere".


Nits:

Both abstract and introduction have this statement:

"The document
   provides a summary of generic threats that affects routing protocols."
-->that affect (otherwise it reads as if the summary is doing the affecting).

Section 2.

"routing protocols may need to maintain the state of their"
-->maintain knowledge about the state?

"Routing protocol data plane uses messages to exchange information"
-->The (or A) Routing protocol?

Section 3.

"Routing protocols are subject to treats at the control and data"
--->threats.

Section 3.1.2
"Disruption: This consequence occurs when a legitimate router's
      operation is being interrupted or prevented. Subvert links can"

" interfering routing exchanges, or system integrity."--> interfering with?

<I gave up on the Nits here, and I'd recommend an editing pass by a native
speaker familiar with the topic>

--->subverted