[v6ops] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-05: (with COMMENT)
Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 30 July 2018 03:12 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C847E130DF0; Sun, 29 Jul 2018 20:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras@ietf.org, Russ White <russ@riw.us>, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, russ@riw.us, v6ops@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.83.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153292034480.7043.166309226503951804.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 20:12:24 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/UJup40ZxysT2_oDID3DBmsvQBcI>
Subject: [v6ops] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 03:12:25 -0000
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-05: Yes 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-v6ops-conditional-ras/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I echo Mirja's thanks for a well-written document (and her curiosity about the near-null Security Considerations - there's at least one recommendation in this document, so it seems possible that some security consideration is worth mentioning). But I think I understand this topic, and now I think I understand it much better. Thanks for that. I do have some minor comments, but they are non-blocking, so do the right thing. This text toward the bottom of the abstract this document adopts the approach proposed in the "ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa- multihoming" draft to provide a solution for a limited number of common use cases. is pretty easy to miss. If the reader misses it, the first sentence is kind of misleading - it just says This document discusses the most common scenarios of connecting an enterprise network to multiple ISPs using an address space assigned by an ISP. Perhaps it's worth pointing that out in the first sentence, rather than towards the end of the abstract? I've been on the IESG far too long, but I have tried repeatedly to read While some work is being done in the Source Address Dependent Routing (SADR) area (such as [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]), without thinking "but SADR isn't an (IETF) area?!?", and I can't do it. If While some work is being done on Source Address Dependent Routing (SADR) (such as [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]), that would stop startling at least one reader ... In 3.2.5. Topologies with Dedicated Border Routers For simplicity, all topologies above show the ISP uplinks terminated on the first-hop routers. Obviously, the proposed approach can be used in more complex topologies when dedicated devices are used for terminating ISP uplinks. In that case VRRP mastership or interface status can not be used as a trigger for conditional RAs and route presence as described above should be used instead. "as described above" might be easier to navigate if it was "as described above in Section 3.1.2" - it's a six-page jump, if I'm tracking this cross reference correctly, and if I'm not, an explicit section reference would be even more appreciated. I'm not sure that It should be noted that the proposed approach is not a silver bullet for all possible multihoming scenarios. "silver bullet" is clear for readers from cultural contexts that don't include werewolves or vampires ... but do the right thing, of course. It's a nit, but "such as latencyetc". It's a nit, but "correspodning".
- Re: [v6ops] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-v6… Jen Linkova
- Re: [v6ops] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-v6… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- [v6ops] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-v6ops-… Spencer Dawkins