IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 02 February 2021 06:06 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
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 108833A179A; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 22:06:07 -0800 (PST)
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 isxnl-H6yJkO; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 22:06:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39F423A1798; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 22:06:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1l6op4-00062l-4e; Tue, 02 Feb 2021 06:05:58 +0000
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 22:05:57 -0800
Message-ID: <m25z3bdmwq.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Antonio Prado <antonio=40prado.it@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <d0db3975-627c-3760-235d-95d6ffa438f3@prado.it>
References: <01f501d6f82b$b1f2cd50$15d867f0$@bigdatacloud.net> <d0db3975-627c-3760-235d-95d6ffa438f3@prado.it>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/_uWdKgSmY09CP1gzN887VFqSuZ0>
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: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 06:06:07 -0000

> 1. I believe it may be more correct to refer to RFC 4012 rather than
> 2622 (as inet6num support is declared in this draft)

thanks!

> 2. paragraph 4, first block, I think it should say "there IS a fair
> number of them."

<blush>

> 3. paragraph 5 "The geofeed files SHOULD be published over and fetched
> using https". maybe the word https should be capitalized HTTPS?

can you cite where i would get good answers to such stuff?  the rfced
usually cleans them up.

> 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/ ?

<blush> yet again

> 5. oh, speaking of Iff, I would prefer if and only if, extended.

will you not hate me if i leave it and let rfc have one more reason to
whack me?

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email