Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds

Antonio Prado <antonio@prado.it> Mon, 01 February 2021 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <antonio@prado.it>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78ED63A11D9 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 06:45:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=prado.it
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 wEPGlJd9xptz for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 06:45:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D3313A11D8 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 06:45:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id c12so16853162wrc.7 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 06:45:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=prado.it; s=google; h=to:references:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SJYals65GteDP3XQ4TUBLUx4GQut9XmJ6SK5V28Ygfk=; b=qo6PGZYNdbam+xt5xce8OBjnjk5g9Ix1xeEtls52FYlpVuFixbFBzQ5ffvXmdp2Ya8 dos+vUlwgz0/gabj98C2KZuWk+Sxizm5jS8rwkqCsS7eeXunSpS7O08jQJOMJbiVXzId AwPanb+OzEYPzlsMQIqRdTgVnr+eKTWe0SPqg=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:to:references:from:subject:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SJYals65GteDP3XQ4TUBLUx4GQut9XmJ6SK5V28Ygfk=; b=WqTBVuc9yLbzTcOyBNFFe2WfKoi8rB4Yro0V6NGFlzxzKt/4r7A7fyGObh7pWJ1hUZ 5HzOBbOn0eL20SKquISrSYs8YQHuiOuYDek6HLVPqtq7/bmH1UbMY0dKDRq2Pmq8SejA WAK2WtnYqPXxYlqq9905hiQ0tXFFXmIQ3yG49R4hAjzVoC9/gqpwib5eibZyOCKwvOtk UFBTVD4Bm2d5kkosj3FX97eFwKz8/7xkmYU+T6qIWxHO7zcJZyaK/lSQbn904nRKVjiL +RiqVV44nrLyJNjUW2utEg5HKyjAblGPCsoCL8J04Uj/KtfF+bOEa3p8FgpBIZ1zPLXv 98YQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533wvShcqBgfmrewjYR6VfZ4sj89v8y4aCeK5KESz7aaXl6mE9Pg C53lkYgFWUvoRmibxCMXekjVr3zr/VIvG0Nh
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJza3fa3RcgyAiR7Qsf3Ca4BeDviGc8KNO3UWgMukt43qhVmH3AZ2txEK2RrQt4avXcbiYdSoA==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5283:: with SMTP id c3mr17973652wrv.319.1612190703657; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 06:45:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PRDMBP.homenet.telecomitalia.it (host-82-53-51-7.retail.telecomitalia.it. [82.53.51.7]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id k4sm28785155wrm.53.2021.02.01.06.45.02 for <opsawg@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Feb 2021 06:45:03 -0800 (PST)
To: opsawg@ietf.org
References: <01f501d6f82b$b1f2cd50$15d867f0$@bigdatacloud.net>
From: Antonio Prado <antonio@prado.it>
Message-ID: <d0db3975-627c-3760-235d-95d6ffa438f3@prado.it>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:45:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <01f501d6f82b$b1f2cd50$15d867f0$@bigdatacloud.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/CJx8lNA-Q2dt1erG5TynZtE69_o>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 14:45:07 -0000

On 2/1/21 12:49 AM, pol@bigdatacloud.com wrote:
> I support this

hi,

I very much appreciate the intentions of this text and hope to see the 
solutions it proposes widely adopted: I'm planning to implement it 
myself right away. therefore, I would like to express my support for 
this draft.

besides, I would like to make some small notes on the text:

1. I believe it may be more correct to refer to RFC 4012 rather than 
2622 (as inet6num support is declared in this draft)
2. paragraph 4, first block, I think it should say "there IS a fair 
number of them."
3. paragraph 5 "The geofeed files SHOULD be published over and fetched 
using https". maybe the word https should be capitalized HTTPS?
4. paragraph 6 "If an inetnum: for a wide prefix (e.g. a / 16) points to 
an RPKI-signed geofeed file, a customer or attacker could publish a 
unsigned". maybe s/a unsigned/an unsigned/ ?
5. oh, speaking of Iff, I would prefer if and only if, extended.

thank you
--
antonio prado
AP7729-RIPE
SBTAP, AS59715