Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: (with COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 10 August 2021 19:31 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1E73A199B; Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model@ietf.org, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org, Chris Bowers <chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, chrisbowers.ietf@gmail.com
Subject: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.36.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <162862387709.6959.5734565458422768886@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:31:17 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/fUzhttVv541JuNRlLDC6yf_O0WE>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:31:18 -0000
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Dan Harkins for the SECDIR review. ** Section 5. If none of the policy statement conditions are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy definition stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is evaluated. Is it worth mentioning in this paragraph that various implementation specific optimizations may be possible. For example, Section 4.2 notes policy match conditions. If the match condition is ALL and the first condition is not satisfied, is it necessary to evaluate the next policy statement? ** Section 8. The text helpful notes the read sensitivity of “/routing-policy/policy-definitions/policy-definition” with “Additionally, policies and their attendant conditions and actions should be considered proprietary and disclosure could be used to ascertain partners, customers, and supplies.” It seems like “defined-sets/prefix-sets” could also reveal these relationships with partners, customers or suppliers.
- Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
- Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-rt… Yingzhen Qu