Re: [drinks] Looking for 2-4 volunteers to review draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements
Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> Tue, 03 August 2010 10:59 UTC
Return-Path: <pk@DENIC.DE>
X-Original-To: drinks@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: drinks@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37CE23A696E for <drinks@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 03:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.703
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.913, BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id od0-ZySp2KTK for <drinks@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 03:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office.denic.de (gw-office.denic.de [81.91.160.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00EB73A68E1 for <drinks@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 03:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unknown.office.denic.de ([10.122.65.69]) by office.denic.de with esmtp id 1OgFEK-0001E4-5A; Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:00:20 +0200
Received: by unknown.office.denic.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 13A316B0F84; Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:00:19 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:00:19 +0200
From: Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE>
To: IETF DRINKS WG <drinks@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20100803110019.GB2516@unknown.office.denic.de>
Mail-Followup-To: IETF DRINKS WG <drinks@ietf.org>
References: <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D4665093AC56D@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D4665093AC56D@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Subject: Re: [drinks] Looking for 2-4 volunteers to review draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements
X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG <drinks.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks>
List-Post: <mailto:drinks@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:59:54 -0000
Alex, WG, > we're looking for 2-4 additional volunteers for > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements > (outside of the core contributor team of the document). The document is this is a coarse review of <draft-ietf-drinks-usecases-requirements-03.txt>. Since I have (deliberately) not read the other comments on this version of the draft, I apologize for potential duplications. o UC INTERCONNECT #5 Provisioning of a delegated name server: An SSP maintains a Tier 2 name server that contains the NAPTR records that constitute the terminal step in the LUF. The SSP needs to provision a registry to direct queries for the SSP's numbers to the Tier 2 name server. Usually queries to the registry should return NS records, but in cases where the Tier 2 uses a different domain suffix from that used in the registry, CNAME and NS records may be employed instead. (also REQ5) The rest of the use cases is rqther high level, so the apperance of "Tier 2" and the DNS RR types comes a bit out of the blue. Also, from a DNS perspective, the wording could benefit from a rephrase. (e.g., RR's aren't contained in a name server but in a DNS zone; "queries to the registry": the draft does not state that DNS is _the_ lookup protocol; CNAME+NS doesn't suggest how these would interact) All in all, there are hidden assumptions here that would either need more explanation, more references - or maybe better even: an increased level of abstraction). o UC SED EXCHANGE #1 SED Exchange and Discovery using unified LUF/LRF: When establishing peering relationships some SSPs wish to communicate or receive points of ingress and other SED that contain LUF and LRF. What is meant by "points of ingress and other SED that contain LUF and LRF"? o RN is not expanded in the draft (neither in RFC 5486. o Capitalization of "destination group" is not consistent. o The text below figure 3 misses a description of the relation between "SED record" and "PI". o Page 9, 1st paragraph: to authorization. However, the act of authorization is considered to be out of scope within this document. maybe "out of the scope of"? (see below for security implications) o The term "lookup key", used in 3.6, is never defined. also: capitalization o Routing Groups vs Route Groups (again: consistent capitalization) Routing Groups are defined under (1) Terminology and Route Groups are (re)defined under UC DATA #3. It is not clear to me that both definitions match 100%, but in any case terminology should be made consistent. o IANA considerations: the list of non-actions should contain both registration and the creation of a registry (the absence thereof, of course). o Security Considerations: the draft says "access" to data could compromise security without being clear whether this is read or write access. The document rules questions of authorization (for the provisioning mechanism) out of scope, so one of the major topics of protecting a registry is not addressed in the requirements. Where are these aspects supposed to be covered? o It is a bit unusual for an IETF document, albeit not completely without precedent, to list the affiliations in the Acknowledgements section. o References: RFC 5486 (SPEERMINT terminology) should be a normative reference, since it is needed to understand this document. -Peter
- [drinks] Looking for 2-4 volunteers to review dra… Alexander Mayrhofer
- Re: [drinks] Looking for 2-4 volunteers to review… Otmar Lendl
- Re: [drinks] Looking for 2-4 volunteers to review… Sumanth Channabasappa
- Re: [drinks] Looking for 2-4 volunteers to review… Otmar Lendl
- Re: [drinks] Looking for 2-4 volunteers to review… Peter Koch
- [drinks] Some ideas on the Route Records Otmar Lendl
- [drinks] Open Numbering Plan Cartwright, Ken
- Re: [drinks] Open Numbering Plan Alexander Mayrhofer
- Re: [drinks] Open Numbering Plan Alexander Mayrhofer
- Re: [drinks] Open Numbering Plan Cartwright, Ken
- Re: [drinks] Open Numbering Plan Alexander Mayrhofer
- Re: [drinks] Open Numbering Plan Cartwright, Ken
- [drinks] The NP use-case Otmar Lendl
- Re: [drinks] The NP use-case David Schwartz
- Re: [drinks] The NP use-case PFAUTZ, PENN L (ATTCORP)
- [drinks] FW: The NP use-case Cartwright, Ken