Re: [OPSAWG] John Scudder's Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-10: (with COMMENT)
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 13 February 2024 21:56 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 B7BF6C151527; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:56:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=psg.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dmNch_sEXIE4; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:56:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DC8EC14F684; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:56:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=psg.com; s=rgnet-mail; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Message-ID:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=kQocVImd/mq5e9yKJFydddECpizVVJAMbTwxqqO1A6E=; b=YwIBArpY+bup+f+U49mzvk2eo1 mfhv53o4pkqls67p91eyMk1MS64HzxnJ/iLLaW07QK6Ic9O+iNqAVTQeSGI4CqCqbPlNzZrHgwy7B jLoFWrTfaA+dNBEAB1RE4NS0lqP5pF9Bu4XoDeiPojWdmGT1f/q0PCFTSq/ganhdQn1vs8JfdCk7F vygTb+3TfMcBCy2Ezklw0XmavALfLx6+JtS41oDrH8B4OHwhlB/BsHtuPTFaMjzrmhLQzTLEl7Dyo MUEHsvurNsf0y/HAhGf9WyEHl3tZucbV9+zwCm2aBTC35uQ8JBx0lLXy4KivaK3B2n5W0++Y998sw r8EM0Juw==;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1ra0lU-000HWA-PC; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 21:56:33 +0000
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:56:31 -0800
Message-ID: <m2a5o4m3jk.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update@ietf.org, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
In-Reply-To: <170785657920.54976.2844074846135561044@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <170785657920.54976.2844074846135561044@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/27.2 Mule/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/yy8aoJxUa6OCcZB-CcBssIBKU-A>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] John Scudder's Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 13 Feb 2024 21:56:39 -0000
> The nit:
>
> 192.0.2.0/12 (in Section 3) isn’t what I consider a well-formed prefix, since
> the third octet has a set bit but isn’t under the mask. I would’ve said
> 192.0.0.0/12. (Or better still 192.0/12, but that form seems to be disfavored.)
nit? looks like a full grown bug to me. <blush>
/12 seems excessive to make the point. how about the full example
becoming:
inetnum: 192.0.0.0/22 # example
remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed_1
inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example
remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed_2
If geofeed_1 contains geolocation data about 192.0.2.0/29, it is
ignored because 192.0.2.0/24 is within the more specific 192.0.2.0/24
inetnum: covering the address range and has a geofeed reference.
randy
- [OPSAWG] John Scudder's Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-… John Scudder via Datatracker
- Re: [OPSAWG] John Scudder's Yes on draft-ietf-ops… Massimo Candela
- Re: [OPSAWG] John Scudder's Yes on draft-ietf-ops… Randy Bush