[GROW] Genart Telechat review: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-07

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

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
>