Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition (ends: 8/24/2015 - Aug 24)

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Siram: 

Do you want me to post this for a cross-review in IDR? 

Sue Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: GROW [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sriram, Kotikalapudi
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 8:18 AM
To: George, Wes; Christopher Morrow; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail] [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition
(ends: 8/24/2015 - Aug 24)

Thank you, Wes.
The comments you've offered are greatly helpful for improving accuracy as
well as clarity in what is being said. 
I plan to incorporate them in the next revision (v. -03) soon.

Sriram   
________________________________________
From: GROW <[e-mail]> on behalf of George, Wes
<[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 2:45 PM
To: Christopher Morrow; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail] [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [GROW] WGLC: draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition
(ends: 8/24/2015 - Aug 24)

I've reviewed the latest version, and generally think that it is ready to
proceed once the below comments are addressed. A cross-review from IDR might
also be useful before it goes to IETF LC.

There are several areas in Section 3 where you use attack and leak
interchangeably in a way that adds a bit of confusion. I think it'd be
better to pick one and stick with it, probably leak rather than attack, and
only use attack if you are describing something that is almost always
malicious rather than accidental.
I.e.
attack type 1 - "The update basically makes a
      U-turn at the attacker's multi-homed AS.  The attack (accidental
      or deliberate) often succeeds"
Previously, you say that you refer to the leaking AS as the "offending AS".
I'd suggest using that here instead of "the attacker's". Similarly, you've
already said that most leaks are unintentional, so it might be better to
simplify that next sentence by saying "the leak often succeeds"
and eliminate the parenthetical. It is also unclear from the text exactly
what you mean by U-Turn (it's not going back the way it came, so actually
hairpin might be a better term), so a few words to clarify might be useful.
Type 2 - "Update is crafted by the attacker...success of the attack" - same
comment here about attack vs leak vs offending AS

Type 4 - While often the increase in prefixes causes its own problems
(dramatically increased routing table size, exceeded max prefix limit,
etc) you may want to add some text to the effect of "these more specifics
may cause the routes to be preferred over other aggregate announcements,
thus redirecting traffic from its normal best path" as that makes it clearer
what the impact of the leak is in this case.

Type 5 - I'm not sure that the terms "lateral" or "non-hierarchically
peering" really add a lot to the explanation. The rest of your text sounds
more like you're describing a non-transit relationship (typically only
announce their customer routes to each other), which I think would be an
easier term to define and more likely to be something readers would be
familiar with. Either way, the explanation in this section could benefit
from a good editing pass for clarity.

Type 6/7- "its provider" - do you mean its transit provider? Otherwise it's
unclear what distinguishes this from type 5, and again would be useful to
use transit/non-transit to clarify.

Also, an editorial nit/personal preference: since there are so few sections
to this document, it might be useful to take each of the subtypes and make
it a subsection of section 3 (e.g. 3.1 3.2, 3.3...), so that it's easier to
refer to it in text and reviews - subsections can have HTML anchors so that
you can link right to them, and they show up in the table of contents as
well.

Thanks,

Wes

_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow