Dear authors: I have been selected to do a BGP Directorate review of this draft. In short, I believe this document is on the right track. I put comments inline, but I want to highlight two items here: (1) Add instructions for the Designated Experts (see comments around line 132). (2) The draft establishes IANA registries for FSM session attributes and events, but does not establish identifiers for FSM states or substates. This omission seems inconsistent with the stated goal of consistently enumerating BGP FSM elements. Why are they not considered? Thanks!! Alvaro. [Line numbers from idnits.] ... 82 1. Introduction 84 Section 8 of [RFC4271] defines BGP's finite state machine (FSM). 85 Some elements of the FSM are enumerated. These include: 87 * Session attributes (variables), which may be: 89 - Mandatory and MUST be supported by all BGP-4 implementations on 90 all BGP connections. 92 - Optional and MAY be supported, either per connection or per 93 local system. [major] The use of MUST/MAY here is misleading because the Normative requirements come from rfc4271. The text is not a direct quote, so using Normative language here makes it look like this document is specifying the behavior. Instead, please paraphrase: Suggestion> * Session attributes (variables), which are: - Mandatory and required to be supported by all BGP-4 implementations on all BGP connections [rfc4271]. - Optional and may be supported, either per connection or per local system [rfc4271]. ... 105 While the core FSM is defined in [RFC4271], extensions specified in 106 other BGP documents may update FSM procedures. Consistent 107 enumeration and naming of these FSM elements is necessary for 108 procedural clarity. Additionally, management mechanisms such as YANG 109 [RFC7950] modules may expose BGP protocol state covered by these 110 elements. [] Not to add more work...is there any plan for the BGP YANG Model to use the values defined here? ... 125 2.1. Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) FSM Elements Registry 127 IANA is requested to create a new registry, titled, "BGP-4 Finite 128 State Machine (FSM) Elements". This is a new registry grouping 129 distinct from the existing Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Parameters 130 registry group. The registration policy for the contents of this 131 registry and its sub-registries shall be "IETF Review with Designated 132 Experts". The designated experts for these registries are the IDR WG 133 chairs. [major] I have no issues with the DEs being the Chairs, but the appointment is done by the IESG, so this sentence shouldn't be here. [major] Noting that the authors are the current idr Chairs, please include a section with instructions for the Designated Experts as they will change in the future and consistency of criteria is important. ... 138 2.2. Names in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4) FSM Elements Registry [major] Neither paragraph in this section contains instructions for IANA. The suggestions and, more importantly, the Normative statement should be placed outside the IANA Considerations section. 140 Elements in this registry may have names that are very long. As an 141 example, some [RFC4271] FSM events have compound names joined with 142 the underscore character. To ease display of those compound names, 143 this registry replaces the underscore character with the space 144 character. [major] This causes consistency issues in the RFC documentation/traceability: it won't be straightforward to reference between RFCs. Instead, suggest that implementations treat the underscore as a space... Suggestion> Elements in this registry may have names that are very long. As an example, some [RFC4271] FSM events have compound names joined with the underscore character. To ease display of those compound names, implementations can replace the underscore character with the space character. 146 Identifiers, such as those used in YANG (see Section 4.3 of 147 [RFC9907]), that represent entries in this registry MUST provide a 148 reference to the registered Value for a given entry in the 149 appropriate sub-registry. It is RECOMMENDED that the full Name be 150 included in the descriptive text or comments for such identifiers. ... 387 3. Security Considerations 389 This document does not introduce any new security considerations to 390 the BGP protocol. [] True, but please indicate why. Suggestion> This document defines new IANA registries... [EoR-02]