[Sidrops] AD review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Tue, 24 July 2018 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D491311D1 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 LeSE3o2VjlFU for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DDF91311C4 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id t6-v6so5231671wrn.7 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ylL128fyMmjeNV7+XpB1s5V54lW0OOGRuiqutzZO9FM=; b=fSydLhSAj//mpRcXoxA4MajfgO/VGzfgvGJzv1xuxghWD9kYg5aMjMs7Ib6hWj/1GA qPi5G3X06RZDMpcLjDMREv1n2fZ1L9yGO19phxqIxQ+phO3Ib/Q7uidpyo9hreLo32YJ +hBN5hVkcRm/ctpRQ1fW8cRzMFSoh4RH30KToiyZgeK1bbftnYcxuyJHsDpzvqL7QZfw QqRLpGPPzQ1mYLvlyK+7Q4nUF+jTL0rqmxvxHphblKL+lnIqdyMyRWTcjXTES6Bt+Wpw vBlMUXSqP0IGPktmOXG1Ev75TKIjvqMp67n3unGXZ9YSGkYm0LdkvgB/iUlP6jmi0HzX 2u+g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ylL128fyMmjeNV7+XpB1s5V54lW0OOGRuiqutzZO9FM=; b=B+3m0GV5uoqRbFzClKv+Z++lzt0br6DndFr+T2e/cT7cIvHztCS7c0FIjODqk41De2 s4T9jfGgp9x31f0SNSHY+v2Sn2qpxSvflNKmBHMlZvkPrIWnSAyKCWpaAmxsncKVBp5T bppnQ9UHlmCwD0EYfpZa56ciMINQogFX9uuusxDXkUvp/Fz7FXrmP9Aw/ue222MD2D58 Bt9/nJmnFne0BFCMQo2V/VVCYApaXrDgxydPHWjzlOXoFiIlWxfLTy5YS8Rt4Ea+cK7W cq7D/SNBXTP5T2VUlwGaaDlx7O5u59GbWvkkLmxClizSIpP/6wZXiFTv1ObJPCnWcBh+ 9+vA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEias5d9KH0qcVssGN/UOfvVD1n5VrjEUbV7QBe+2wr1rFwALkU CXfm21XXJ+2T9XD9aG4MvD8w13xdlpc0pEZ1gmya7w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdfoCyraazyptjxjDTHjiKf6tqEOjx6+tlZseojTFLPABXwVp/RkN+lUl55PsuYgoo9kxPnsqb1clt8hYYI6Dw=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:574d:: with SMTP id q13-v6mr12108153wrw.24.1532461435256; Tue, 24 Jul 2018 12:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 15:43:15 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iLod9Fr0PYjpDGtyuD_BH+hOsQOJrT5ngqHwjyUWbaFyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify@ietf.org, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/NH7v6D0beIDRfg7Z05cBlzr_nMs>
Subject: [Sidrops] AD review of draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 19:44:01 -0000

Hi all,

Thanks to the authors for a useful and easy to read document -- I
think clarification documents are useful, especially if they are
informed by operational or implementation experience.

I do have a few questions, and a nit which I think will help with readability:

1: Why is this Standards Track? It doesn't update a Std Track
document, nor does it seem to have much in the way of protocol. If
there is a reason I'm happy to progress it like this, otherwise
Informational feels like a better fit.

2: Section 3.  Mark ALL Prefixes
   "Significant Clarification: A router MUST mark all routes in BGP
   coming from any source (eBGP, iBGP, or redistribution from static),
unless..."
Presumably the router should also mark routes redistributed from
protocols other than static as well? Regardless of the wisdom of
redistributing $favorite_igp, I'd assume they should be consistent.

3: The Shepherd Writeup seems to be missing some words:
"(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

Document Shepherds read the document, reviewed comments and "

4: Nit:
Section 1.  Introduction
"Deployment of RPKI-based BGP origin validation is hampered by, among
other things, vendor mis-implementations in two critical areas, which
routes are validated and whether policy is applied when not specified
by configuration."

I think that this would read much cleaner as:
"vendor mis-implementations in two critical areas: which routes are
validated" (s/,/:/)
If editing the draft to address any of the above, this seems like a
nit worth addressing.

W
-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf