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

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 15:43:15 -0400

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

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 14:16:46 -0700

> document

well, it does.  6811.  i guess i should figure out how to get that in
the header.

> redistributing $favorite_igp, I'd assume they should be consistent.

hmmm.  i guess i should include 'connected'.  can you think of others?

> 3: The Shepherd Writeup seems to be missing some words:

ain't my dawg

> If editing the draft to address any of the above, this seems like a

i have other nits i have fixed in the next rev.

randy

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 21:31:23 +0000

> well, it does.  6811.  i guess i should figure out how to get that in

add this in the <rfc ...> tag:

    updates="6811"

> > 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..."

also "generated", so perhaps:

    """
    A router MUST mark all routes in BGP coming from any source (EBGP,
    IBGP, IGP, or redistribution from static and generated routes, etc),
    unless...
    """"

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:57:03 -0400

> add this in the <rfc ...> tag:

... and in the Abstract add "This updates RFC6811 by $something and
$something_else" -- perhaps "This updates RFC6811 by clarifying that
all prefixes should be marked, and that policy must not be applied
without operator configuration"

>     IBGP, IGP, or redistribution from static and generated routes, etc),

Works for me....

Thank you very much!
W

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 10:29:35 -0700

> perhaps "This updates RFC6811 by clarifying that all prefixes should
> be marked, and that policy must not be applied without operator
> configuration"

not the text i had put in, but i can steal it.  no ipr i presume?

>>     IBGP, IGP, or redistribution from static and generated routes, etc),

this is what i had put in

    Significant Clarification: A router MUST mark all routes in BGP
    coming from any source (eBGP, iBGP, or redistribution from static,
    connected, etc.), unless specifically configured otherwise by the
    operator.

randy

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:13:48 -0400

> not the text i had put in, but i can steal it.  no ipr i presume?

Of course (and no IPR :-))

>     connected, etc.), unless specifically configured otherwise by the

WFM!
W

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 11:28:14 -0700

tell me when you want the new version posted.

randy

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:40:37 -0400

> tell me when you want the new version posted.

I'm fine whenever, so up to Job et al.
W