Subject: Re: [Sidrops] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-03

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 10:21:40 -0700

hi druv,

review appreciated.

>     - The text in RFC6811 uses the term “lookup” and “validation
> state”, the
>       clarification uses the term “mark”. This might be a bit pedantic but
>       wouldn’t it be better to state the clarification in terms of
> RFC6811?

<doh>  good catch

>     - Since RFC4271 and RFC6480 are stated as mandatory reading to
> understand
>       this I-D in section 2, shouldn’t they be normative references?

i will be interested in others' feedback on this one.  i take normative
as needed to implement, not as needed to have clue :)

>     - I agree with the Gen-ART review, that ask for BGP in the title,
> in fact
>     “Prefix Origin Validation” in the title would be better!

as i said to a different reviews, it has been changed to "BGP-4
RPKI-Based Origin Validation Clarifications"

oh bleep!

WARNING: The inline string was truncated because it was too long:
  BGP-4 RPKI-Based Origin Validation Clarifications

s/-4//

>     - Expand RPKI in Abstract.

acl

>     - The Requirement language phrasing is little different from RFC 8174.

rfced will discuss

i have pushed -04.  i hope the diff does not cause heartburn to anyone.

again, thanks!

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:26:07 -0700

> I usually go by this IESG statement -
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references/;
> which says - "Normative references specify documents that must be read to
> understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose technology
> must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work."  Just FYI

yes.  i guess so.  my broken mind-set.

> I saw these nits in the diff -
> 
> OLD:
>    When a route is distributed into BGP, the origin validation state of
>    the is set to as NotFound, Valid, or Invalid per [RFC6811].
> NEW:
>    When a route is distributed into BGP, the origin validation state of
>    the prefix is set to as NotFound, Valid, or Invalid as per [RFC6811].

sigh.  thanks

will hold -5 for a few more reviews

randy

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 18:51:02 +0530

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 
The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related 
drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the 
Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it 
would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion 
or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-clarify-03
Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody
Review Date: 10 Aug 2018
IETF LC End Date: Unknown
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

     I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
     resolved before publication.

Comments:

     This is a standards track draft that clarifies the behavior of Origin
     Validation in BGP (and thus updates RFC 6811). It states that the 
origin
     validation MUST be done for all routes, including the imported 
routes; where
     as the RFC 6811 uses "SHOULD". This I-D further states that the 
policy is
     applied only if explicitly configured by the operator. The 
clarifications
     are clear and easy to follow. The I-D is technically sound and 
almost ready.

Major Issues:

     No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

     - The text in RFC6811 uses the term “lookup” and “validation 
state”, the
       clarification uses the term “mark”. This might be a bit pedantic but
       wouldn’t it be better to state the clarification in terms of RFC6811?

Nits:

Thanks!
Dhruv

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 23:46:24 +0530

Hi Randy,

Thanks for your reply. I am sorry that my email client did something weird
with the formating!

OLD:

--

s/evaluation state/validation state/

--

Thanks Again!

Regards,
Dhruv