Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: (with COMMENT)

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

HI Roman,

Thank you for your review and comments. Please see my answers inline.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

> On Aug 10, 2021, at 12:31 PM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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?

[Yingzhen]: Personally I don’t think it’s really necessary. It’s up to implementations, like in your example, a good implementation will “break” out of the comparison if there is “False” in condition ALL.
> 
> ** 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.

[Yingzhen]: The policy-definition may refer to a prefix-sets, and it definitely reveal more information. You can config a list of prefix-sets, but not use them in any policy definition. 
> 
> 
>