Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-15

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On May 4, 2020 at 4:29:30 PM, John Scudder wrote:


John:

Hi!


> > On Feb 21, 2020, at 7:47 AM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> > 431 o It can be determined that the IP address in the sub-TLV's address
> > 432 subfield does not belong to the non-zero AS whose number is in the
> > 433 its Autonomous System subfield. (See section Section 13 for
> > 434 discussion of one way to determine this.)
> >
> > [major] "one way" I hope that it is the MTI way -- otherwise, the
> > determination of the sub-TLV being malformed is not deterministic.
>
> ISTM (I am just guessing though) that the “it can be determined” language
> was finely crafted to avoid this exact objection. It makes the entire
> clause optional.

I have a hard time making that reading, specially since the
introduction to the bullet list says: "If any of the following
conditions hold..." -- making the condition sufficient on its own, but
not necessary.



> If we try to make determination of IP address belonging to a given AS
> mandatory, I think we are opening a can of worms, since although RPKI
> deployment has made a lot of progress, it’s far from universal. I think we
> are better off leaving this as written, IMO.

I agree that "belonging" should not be mandatory/part of the criteria
here.  Look at the 5th introductory point in my review.


Alvaro.