# HG changeset patch
# User Henry Thompson <ht@markup.co.uk>
# Date 1792413747 -3600
# Node ID d8dde47d0a7f8aafcd85a54b5fe726bd2455a6d7
# Parent  4ca654e435db15ec56a6ecd5fe3fa79afb1b023c
as submitted?

diff -r 4ca654e435db -r d8dde47d0a7f draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid...txt
--- a/draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid...txt	Tue Jun 16 15:08:37 2026 +0100
+++ b/draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid...txt	Mon Oct 19 13:42:27 2026 +0100
@@ -1,1 +1,54 @@
 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp/reviewrequest/24139/login/
+Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-avoid-rpki-state-in-bgp-11
+Title: Guidance to Avoid Carrying RPKI Validation States in BGP Path Attributes
+Reviewer: Henry S. Thompson
+Review Date: 2025-06-17
+
+*Summary*
+
+As far as I can tell as a non-specialist, the presentation of this
+proposed BCP is in good shape.  There is one minor suggestion and some
+editorial nits below.
+
+*Minor point*
+
+1.
+
+ ... "states leak through to EGBP speakers."  Would it be possible to
+ _briefly_ mention here at least one known way in which such leakage
+ can occur in a conformant router?  That way operators of 'good'
+ routers may realise this document is relevant to them.
+
+*Nits*
+
+1.
+
+ In this phrase
+
+ "Annotating ... Attribute carried across EBGP session (based on validation
+  states) means that BGP UPDATE messages have to be sent to every
+  neighbor when the aforementioned validation states"
+
+ there's a minor grammatical problem.  I would suggest the following
+ change
+
+ "... Attribute carried across an EBGP session (based on validation
+  states) means that BGP UPDATE messages have to be sent to every
+  neighbor when the aforementioned validation states"
+
+4.
+
+ "BGP communities" -> "BGP Communities" [here and in 4 other places below]
+
+ "hold similar" -> "hold in a similar way"
+
+4.1
+
+ "a large amounts" -> "large amounts"
+
+4.1.2
+
+ "caused by operators to signal validation states" ->
+ "caused by operators signalling validation states"
+
+