Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-06

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Hi Randy,

Comments inline.

On 4/29/21 4:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> hi paul:
> 
> thanks for the review.
> 
>> 1) Minor: Definition of "remarks: Geofeed"
>>
>> Section 3 says:
>>
>>     ... The format of the inetnum: geofeed
>>     attribute MUST be as in this example, "remarks: Geofeed" followed by
>>     a URL ...
>>
>>  From the examples and common sense there should be a space preceding
>> the URL. But the text doesn't mention this.
>>
>> I suggest changing to:
>>
>>     ... The format of the inetnum: geofeed
>>     attribute MUST be as in this example, "remarks: Geofeed " followed by
>>     a URL ...
> 
> aha!  good one.  thanks.
> 
>> Also, is the word "Geofeed" case sensitive?
> 
> "MUST be as in this example."  do we need ABNF the ex compiler hacker
> asks?  i can add enough syntactic sugar to give you a diabetic coma :)

I don't think you need abnf. But some text specifying it is/isn't case 
sensitive would help. It may not be necessary if there is a strong 
established policy for handling case in RPSL. But even if there is it 
might not be applicable to processing the text of remarks.

> i contend that it was good enough that your eagle eye caught a bug.
> 
>> 2) Minor: Modification of RPSL
>>
>> Section 3 says:
>>
>>     While we leave global agreement of RPSL modification to the relevant
>>     parties, we specify that a proper geofeed: attribute in the inetnum:
>>     class be simply "geofeed: " followed by a URL which will vary, but
>>     MUST refer only to a [RFC8805] geofeed file.
>>     ...
>>     Until all producers of inetnum:s, i.e. the RIRs, state that they have
>>     migrated to supporting a geofeed: attribute, consumers looking at
>>     inetnum:s to find geofeed URLs MUST be able to consume both the
>>     remarks: and geofeed: forms.
>>
>> This is a bit presumptive. You say you are leaving the RPSL
>> modification to others, yet you are herein standardizing the exact
>> form that modification must take. What if the relevant parties want to
>> choose a different form?
> 
> we have met the enemy and he is us -- pogo by walt kelly
> 
> the work is being done in the ripe database wg of which most authors are
> part.  the wg is driving off this draft and really appreciates having
> the syntax thrown over the wall.  the ripe community is more cooperative
> than the ietf.

If these two efforts are already coordinated then all is well.

>> 3) Minor/Nit: IANA Considerations
>>
>> I don't understand why this section is present. I don't find any
>> reference of it within the document.
> 
>     0 1197: SEQUENCE {
>     4  917:  SEQUENCE {
>     8    3:   [0] {
>    10    1:    INTEGER 2
>           :     }
>    13   20:   INTEGER 27AD394083D7F2B5B99B8670C775B2B96EE166E3
>    35   13:   SEQUENCE {
>    37    9:    OBJECT IDENTIFIER
>           :     sha256WithRSAEncryption (1 2 840 113549 1 1 11)   <<<<<=====
>    48    0:    NULL
>           :     }
> ...
> 
> you mean you don't read decoded certs for breakfast? 

No I don't. Now it is clear.

> they are said to
> make one strong.  the few i have tried had other effects :)

>> 4) NIT: Use of "awesome"
>>
>> I'm not sure how to feel about using *awesome* in the Introduction. It
>> seems unusually informal for a standards document. But in a way I also
>> find it refreshing.
> 
> so do we.  as i said to the kind opsdir reviewer, we'll see how far up
> the chain a sense of perspective still exists.

It will be interesting to see.

>> IdNits reports a number of things worth looking into. Notably the
>> downrefs
> 
> the downrefs are only informational.  they are the best doccos on
> INETNUM today.  sigh.

But the references are included in the Normative References section. If 
you put them in an Informative References section then I think IdNits 
will be happy.

>> and the lack of an IPv6 example.
> 
> iij deployed ipv6 on our global network in '97, so i don't really feel a
> strong need to pander to the insecurities of today's ipv6 fans.  action
> speaks louder than words.  </snark>.

Its only a matter of how much you want to fight mother nature (IdNits). 
If you "fix" the things it complains about then nobody will bring up the 
issue again.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> as i said to kyle, secdir reviewer, unless someone pushes, i'll hold -07
> until a few more reviews come in.
> 
> again, review MUCH appreciated.
> 
> randy
>