Re: [Gen-art] Genart Telechat review: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-07

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 20 August 2015 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7DE1A038E; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 06:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HxWOrKWqCerp; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 06:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359261ACE67; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 06:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B782CCBE; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:50:41 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mysLc3BnOPw4; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:50:40 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C337F2CC5C; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:50:40 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6F666A25-3224-4AB2-93FF-F992DE5DFB26"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <55D21E56.7040608@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 16:50:39 +0300
Message-Id: <3209D838-C031-4689-8CCB-6EAFE25CC2D1@piuha.net>
References: <558B3AEE.2010009@nostrum.com> <55D21E56.7040608@nostrum.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/fkvm82jxYi620WjPLflMwpZASlY>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, grow@ietf.org, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart Telechat review: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:50:47 -0000

Robert, Pierre:

Many thanks for your detailed review and re-review, Robert. And thanks for Pierre and
others for taking into account the comments; I can see that the document has improved.

As for the remaining issue of authors speaking vs. IETF speaking. I agree with the
principle that Robert lays out. But I have also reviewed the document and given the
specific text and the nature of the document (Informational RFC), I do not see
a big problem with the current text. At least not something that would be Discuss-worthy
from my end.

FWIW, more generally, a document provides information, and there may or may not be
IETF opinion backing that opinion. Standards track documents and BCP are
true IETF recommendations. In my view, in those documents, even if they might say
“the authors recommend XYZ” that really carries the weight of the IETF opinion.
For the informational document, there is no requirement that it carries the weight
of an IETF recommendation. But of course, where it is clear that there is an IETF opinion,
it might still say that explicitly.

Jari

On 17 Aug 2015, at 20:48, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-07
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 17 Aug 2015
> IETF LC End Date: 2 Jul 2015
> IESG Telechat date: 20 Aug 2015
> 
> Summary: Ready with nits (but these nits may be discuss worthy)
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Thanks for removing the text suggesting when operators might charge
> each other.
> 
> I still find the document ambiguous about what it's stating as the
> consensus of the IETF. In the places you changed how you used
> "we", you did the very thing I asked to to resist - you say things now
> like "The authors recommend". What is the IETF saying? Is it that the
> IETF agrees that's what the authors recommend? Or is the IETF recommending this.
> 
> This needs to be edited to speak _only_ in terms of what the IETF
> recommends. I'm classifying this as a NIT since it's editorial, but I'm
> worried it's more than that. I encourage the IESG to consider whether
> this is a bigger issue.
> 
> You still draw this conclusion:
> "The authors observe that proactive approaches can be
>    complex to implement and can lead to undesired effects, and thus
>    conclude that the reactive approach is the more reasonable
>    recommendation to deal with unexpected flows."
> 
> What is the IETF consensus position on what is more reasonable, and is it
> even necessary for the IETF to recommend one approach over the other.
> Why is it not sufficient to simply document the considerations with each
> approach and stop there?
> 
> Not much was done with my last suggestion. I still think the document needs
> a strong editorial revision along the lines suggested below.
> 
> 
> On 6/24/15 6:19 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>> 
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>> 
>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>> you may receive.
>> 
>> Document: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-06
>> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
>> Review Date: 24-Jun-2015
>> IETF LC End Date: 2-Jul-2015
>> IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled for a telechat
>> 
>> Summary: Ready with nits
>> 
>> From looking at the document history and list archives, this document's been around for some time, and has had some editorial push already.
>> The unintended consequences it highlights are interesting, and it will be useful to operators to know these possible causes of unexpected behavior.
>> 
>> I encourage another strong editing pass before publication.
>> 
>> This is being published as an IETF-stream document. When published it reflects IETF consensus.
>> There are places in the text that I think are problematic given that status. The issues are editorial, and I expect they will be easy to address.
>> 
>> The document uses "we" frequently. Originally, that meant the authors. It's ambiguous what it means in an IETF-stream document. I suggest editing out all occurrences. Try to avoid simply changing "we" to "the authors" - find a way to reflect what the IETF is saying here.
>> 
>> Is the last paragraph of 4.1 an IETF consensus position on how operators might charge one another? It would be good to find a way to word this that look more like statements of fact and less like charging advice.
>> 
>> The document draws some conclusions that I think are unnecessary. For instance, "Therefore, we conclude that the reactive approach is the more reasonable recommendation to deal with unexpected flows." Why does the IETF need to say that (and is it an IETF consensus statement)? It would be enough, I think, to reduce the discussion in these sections to calling out the issues with each approach.
>> 
>> Please simplify the sentences, and avoid passive construction. For instance, "It can be considered problematic to be causing unexpected traffic flows in other ASes." can be much shorter. After you do that, I think you'll find it easier to identify and collapse sections of redundant text.
>> 
>> RjS
>> 
>