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

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 15:28:16 -0500

Thank you for this (short!) document. The basic idea seems like
obviously a win -- however, in order to progress it there are some
changes I'd like to see made - most of these fall into the process
wonkey category, but addressing them now will help prevent people
starting to fuss, and then getting all wrapped around the axle...

1: The document says: Updates: 6811 (if approved) please add a
sentence to the Abstract saying how / what it updates in 6811.
Something like: "This document updates RFC6811 by clarifying that
implementations must use the effective origin AS to determine the
Origin Validation state when applying egress policy".

2: Please use the updated (RFC8174) requirements language - I've
included it below for easy copy-n-paste.

3: Please include an index  - assuming you are using xml2rfc, <?rfc
toc="yes" ?> should do it for you....

4: Help my understand / justify why this is Standards Track and not
BGP or Informational. The Shepherd writeup just says Standards Track
with no explanation as to *why*. I suspect that the "Updates: 6811"
might be the justification/

Apologies for the process wonkery,
W

"The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here."

-- 
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: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 12:47:36 -0800

> sentence to the Abstract saying how / what it updates in 6811.

stole your text, tyvm, but added to intro not abstract

> included it below for easy copy-n-paste.

sure

> toc="yes" ?> should do it for you....

you are welcome for the now less short document

> might be the justification/

ask warren.  he might have a good explanation. :)  but i do not believe
this belongs in the document.  whack me otherwise.

-01 published

randy

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:48:58 -0500

> this belongs in the document.  whack me otherwise.

Ah, I was meaning just let me know via email, not in the document -
apologies for not being clear.

> -01 published

Thanks, I'll kick off IETF LC.
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