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

From: Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 03:13:04 -0700

Martin Vigoureux 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

   Ingress/egress Access Control Lists (ACLs) are maintained which list
   acceptable (or alternatively, unacceptable) prefixes for the source
   addresses in the incoming/outgoing Internet Protocol (IP) packets.
the beginning of that sentence is a bit hard to parse, but maybe it's just for
me.

   Any packet with a source address that does not match the filter is
   dropped.
well, that really depend on the match criteria. If the list is of unacceptable
addresses and you don't match on these, then you should forward the packet.

   Adj-RIB-Ins
did you mean Adj-RIBs-In?

Figures 1 and 2 claim that EFP-uRPF works best but it has still not been
described at that stage so it is a bit difficult to understand that claim.

---

From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 23:40:33 +0000

Martin,

Thank you for your comments.
My responses marked with "[KS:]" below.

________________________________________
From: Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 6:13 AM

[KS:] The sentence now reads:

Ingress/egress Access Control Lists (ACLs) are maintained to list acceptable 
(or alternatively, unacceptable) prefixes for the source addresses 
in the incoming/outgoing Internet Protocol (IP) packets. 

This was based on Roman's suggestion  (s/which/to/).

[KS:] The sentence now reads:

Any packet with a source address that fails the filtering criterion is dropped. 

   Adj-RIB-Ins

[KS:] Yes, corrected.

[KS:]  We do refer back to those figures later again after EFP-uRPF
is described. It seemed that was better than repeat the figures twice
just to later add 'EFP-uRPF works best' in the second incarnation!
We hope the reader will understand.

Sriram