[OPSEC] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsec-urpf-improvements-03: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 21 August 2019 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: opsec@ietf.org
Delivered-To: opsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D5312094B; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 07:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke_via_Datatracker?= <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-opsec-urpf-improvements@ietf.org, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>, opsec-chairs@ietf.org, sandy@tislabs.com, opsec@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.100.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke?= <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <156639747640.25777.13888707111707970209.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 07:24:36 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsec/pNdc_iUFFWb1WeyVUIX82asorNM>
Subject: [OPSEC] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-iet?= =?utf-8?q?f-opsec-urpf-improvements-03=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: opsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: opsec wg mailing list <opsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec>, <mailto:opsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:24:36 -0000

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsec-urpf-improvements-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsec-urpf-improvements/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the hard work put into this extensive document which is usually
well-written and easy to understand.

Sriram, also please to see this document completing its path after starting in
OPSEC years ago ;-)

Nevertheless, I have a couple of easy-to-fix COMMENTs and NITs.

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Abstract --
The abstract reads like 'promises' but not as a summary of the document. Is
there any chance to add 2 lines summarizing the 'how' ?

-- Section 1.1 --
I am sure that by now you know that you have to use RFC 8174 boilerplate ;-)

-- Section 2.2 --
For completeness and symmetry with section 2.3, please explain which packets
will be dropped.

-- Section 2.3 --
Suggestion: define "RPF list" before first use (even if mostly obvious).

Please define "lateral peer" and why it is different to any other "peer".

-- Section 3.1 --
Please define the "cone" used in this section. First time that I ever read this
term and the RIPE paper does not explain it either (of course I am not a
routing expert).

== NITS ==

-- Section 1 --
Beside the intro, this section also introduces some terminology wording. May I
suggest to have a (sub)section about "terminology" ?

-- Section 2.1 --
CMTS was introduced as an acronym but not DSLAM.