Re: [GROW] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-06

[Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>]

> On Jun 24, 2015, at 4:45 PM, Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 08:35:35AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> darn hard as there are no facts there and it is first class lawyer
>> bait.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> It might be better to remove this part:
> 
> "It is possible that the behavior of the neighboring AS causing the
> unexpected traffic flows opposes the peering agreement.  In this case,
> an operator could account the amount of traffic that has been subject to
> the unexpected flows, using traffic measurement protocols such as IPFIX,
> and charge the peer for that traffic.  That is, the operator can claim
> that it has been a provider of that peer for the traffic that transited
> between the two ASes."
> 
> Instead something like:
> 
> "It is possible that the behavior of the neighboring AS causing the
> unexpected traffic flows violates a contractual agreement between the
> two networks."
> 
> And just leave it at that.


I support Job’s proposed improvement wholeheartedly.

                                -Bill