That all looks good. I think we are done here.
Thanks, Elwyn On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 11:37 -0400, Warren Kumari wrote: > 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
