[GROW] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations-06: (with COMMENT)
"Alvaro Retana" <aretana@cisco.com> Mon, 31 August 2015 20:57 UTC
Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: grow@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF17C1B61BF; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 B9mB_-9XvqeW; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21BB51B619F; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150831205751.947.21899.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:57:51 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/grow/2IqItpeGMuJmTT_tLS8OujDLd3o>
Cc: grow-chairs@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org
Subject: [GROW] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: grow@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: Grow Working Group Mailing List <grow.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/grow/>
List-Post: <mailto:grow@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow>, <mailto:grow-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 20:57:52 -0000
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [My comments are similar to Alia’s review of –05.] It is somewhat hard to pinpoint the expected outputs promised in the Introduction, where is says that the "purpose of this document is to catalog past issues... Additionally, it provides a discussion regarding which of these issues still pose problems in practice, and which are no longer obstacles…” Section 3 seems to provide a roadmap of the document pointing out the pieces covered: "First, accuracy and integrity of data contained within the IRR. Second, the Resource Policy Specification Language (RPSL) used to represent various types of data in the IRR. Third, operation of the IRR infrastructure, i.e.: synchronization of resources from one IRR to other IRRs. Finally, the methods related to extraction of policy from the IRR and the input plus activation of that policy within routers.” While that is ok, there’s no clear correlation with the TOC. The contents of the document don’t have to strictly be reflected in the TOC, but it would be nice to at least call out which sections cover the points listed above. According to my reading, that would be 4 (for #1), 5.1 (for #3) and 5.2, 6 and 7 (for #4). It is not clear to me that independent issues related to RPSL (and not related to #1) are covered..any are intermingled in Section 4. Going back to the purpose of the document. Section 8 (Summary) says that "many of the problems that have traditionally stifled IRR deployment have, themselves, become historical”. But in my reading the only issue that seems to not be an obstacle anymore is the graceful application of policy in BGP (Section 6 and 7). If the intent was to highlight others as non-issues then that should be made clearer. Nits: Section 4. (Accuracy and Integrity of Data Contained within the IRR) s/section/sections Section 5.1. (Replication of Resources Among IRRs) s/has a several weaknesses/has several weaknesses Section 5.2. (Updating Routing Policies from Updated IRR Resources) s/An ISP's customers/An ISP's customer
- [GROW] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf… Alvaro Retana