On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft.
Cool, and thank you for performing the review... > For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> . > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-idr-as0-05.txt > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review Date: 22 August 2012 > IETF LC End Date: 22 August 2012 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) - > > Summary: > Almost ready. > > Major issues: > None. > > Minor issues: > s1, para 2: >> [RFC6491] specifies that AS number zero in a ROA is used to mark an >> NLRI which is to be marked as Invalid. > This is not what s4 of RFC 6491 says although ultimately this is > (probably) the way in which it is intended to be used. RFC 6491 just > says that an 'AS 0 ROA' is used to mark a prefix and all its more > specific prefixes as not to be used in a routing context. Yup. I think that when I originally wrote the above the pre-6491 draft mentioned invalid, but the RFC doesn't :-P I have reworded it to: RFC 6491 specifies that AS number zero in a ROA is used to mark a prefix and all its more specific prefixes as not to be used in a routing context. This allows a resource holder to signal that a prefix (and the more specifics) should not be routed by publishing a ROA listing AS0 as the only origin. To respond to this signal requres that BGP implementations do not accept or propagate routes containing AS0. > > s1, para 4: >> As at least two implementations discard routes containing AS 0, and >> to allow approaches such as the above, this document codifies this >> behavior. > This sentence is not entirely clear as to what behavior is being > codified. It could be just discarding routes with AS 0 or the the use of > AS 0 to mark prefixes that shouldn't be routed. Please make this easier > to parse. This is partly because of the over interpretation of RFC 6491 > mentioned in the previous comment. 'twas supposed to mean just the first part (discarding routes with AS 0), but this allows the second part :-P Have modified it to just: At least two implementations discard routes containing AS 0, and this document codifies this behavior. > > Nits/editorial comments: > Abstract: Acronym BGP needs expanding. Done! > s1: Acronyms ROA, AS and NLRI need expanding. Done, done and done. > s2: It would be worth reinforcing that the behaviors being modified here > are currently specified in RFC 4271. Arguably relevant section numbers > would help. Done: This document corrects this omission, most importantly in the case of the AS_PATH. This represents an update to the error handling procedures given in RFC4271 Sections 6.2 and 6.3 by specifying the behavior in the presence of AS0. > s4: Acronym RPKI needs expanding. Done. > s4, para 2: >> security gotchas often lurk in the undefined spaces > This is slang and cliche that may be difficult for non-US speakers to > understand. > Fair 'nuff. I fixed it, y'all. :-P W -- "Real children don't go hoppity-skip unless they are on drugs." -- Susan, the ultimate sensible governess (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather) _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
