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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Paul, thank you for your review and thank you all for the following discussion. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document.

Lars


> On 2021-4-29, at 19:57, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> 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 treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-06
> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
> Review Date: 2021-04-29
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-05-04
> IESG Telechat date: ?
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review.
> 
> General:
> 
> I'm not competent to review the crypto and security aspects of this document. Hopefully there will also be a security review to cover those.
> 
> Issues:
> 
> Major: 0
> Minor: 3
> Nits:  2
> 
> 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 ...
> 
> Also, is the word "Geofeed" case sensitive?
> 
> 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?
> 
> ISTM that this document should only mandate support for the Remarks form and leave support of the modified RPSL form to later, after RPSL has been updated.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> I just suggest you rethink about whether you want that. I'm good either way.
> 
> 5) Nit: IdNits
> 
> IdNits reports a number of things worth looking into. Notably the downrefs and the lack of an IPv6 example.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art