Hi Mahesh, > On Jan 7, 2026, at 6:09 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Acee, > >> On Jan 6, 2026, at 5:03 PM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Mahesh, >> >>> On Jan 6, 2026, at 7:31 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-lsr-anycast-flag-11: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to >>> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ >>> >>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-anycast-flag/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Thanks to all the folks who have provided review comments on this document. >>> In >>> particular want to call out OPSDIR review comments from Juergen, and YANG >>> Doctor comments provided by Joe Clarke. Some of these comments builds on the >>> review they have provided. >>> >>> Section 1, paragraph 0 >>>> An IP prefix may be configured as anycast and as such the same value >>>> can be advertised by multiple routers. It is useful for other >>>> routers to know that the advertisement is for an anycast prefix. >>> >>> I agree with Juergen that this section could do more to explain the >>> motivation >>> for the draft, and move all the implementation details to later sections. >>> For >>> example, and as Juergen asks, what are the implications of other routers not >>> knowing about the advertisement? I know that Ran provided the explanation in >>> his response, but it would be even better if that was added here. >> >> No - we already went down a rat hole with this in the WG and Ketan suggested >> to remove it. >> Please discuss with him. > > Ok. I will wait for him to respond. > >> >> >>> >>> Section 2, paragraph 0 >>>> An IP prefix may be configured as anycast and it is useful for other >>>> routers to know that the advertisement is for an anycast prefix. >>> >>> I would encourage the authors to add some of the responses Ran gave to the >>> OPSDIR review to be added in this document. In this case, the question asked >>> was, what is prefix and where is it being applied? This might be obvious to >>> "router folks" but it cannot be assumed that everyone knows what it means. >>> >>> Section 4.2, paragraph 0 >>>> The following is the YANG module: >>> >>> Please reference all the RFC from which the module imports data from or >>> refers >>> to. For example, it could say - "This YANG module imports definitions from >>> [RFC8349] and [RFC9129]". >>> >>> Section 6.2, paragraph 3 >>>> There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are >>>> writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the >>>> default). These data nodes can be considered sensitive or vulnerable >>>> in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config) >>>> to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative >>>> effect on network operations. Specifically, the following subtrees >>>> and data nodes have particular sensitivities/vulnerabilities: >>> >>> Is it true that this YANG module defines multiple data nodes? I can see only >>> one. The last statement should also be corrected for its pluarity. >> >> As you well know, this is the boiler plate from >> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis. Perhaps >> this should be corrected there with "(s)"s rather than "s"s. > > Yes, it is boilerplate, but nothings says it cannot be modified. > >> >>> >>> Section 6.2, paragraph 3 >>>> As specified in Section 2, the AC-flag and the N-flag MUST NOT both >>>> be set to 1. An attacker or a misconfiguration that violates this >>>> rule creates a configuration anomaly. The handling of such anomalies >>>> is defined in Section 2. Modifications to these data nodes without >>>> proper protection could prevent interpreting the IPv4 prefix as >>>> anycast or node-specific. >>> >>> If the idea is to detect a configuration anomaly, why is that not detected >>> using a "must" statement? Please add one. Otherwise, this hardly belongs in >>> a >>> Security Considerations section. >> >> We don't normally validate read-only data, i.e., operational state. >> Rather, it is rendered as is so that anomalies can be detected. > > I do not understand. The YANG module is defining a RW leaf for > ‘anycast-flag’. A must statement there could check if the N-flag is set or > not before allowing the flag to be set to true. No? > > Something like > > must > ‘not(/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol/ospf:ospf/ospf:areas/ospf:area/ospf:interfaces/ospf:interface/node-flag)'
Yes - the co-authors could add this constraint to the read-write node. I'll leave it to them. > > And I just noticed that the 'identity ac-flag’ is not used in the module. Is > it being used somewhere else? If not, do we need it? This identity could be returned in the flag container in the extended-prefix-opaque container. Thanks, Acee > > An example would really help here. > >> >> >> >>> >>> Section 6.2, paragraph 3 >>>> Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered >>>> sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus >>>> important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or >>>> notification) to these data nodes. Specifically, the following >>>> subtrees and data nodes have particular sensitivities/ >>>> vulnerabilities: >>> >>> Same issue with pluraity in this section. >>> >>> Section 6.2, paragraph 3 >>>> Exposure of the OSPF link state database may be useful in mounting >>>> Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks. >>> >>> How is lsdb being exposed by this model? If not, please remove. >> >> The new flag is part of an LSA encoding which is in the Link State Database >> (LSDB). > > Sure. But the module that is defining the LSDB or access to it should be the > place where this statement would make sense. > > Thanks. > >> >> Acee >> >> >> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> NIT >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may >>> choose to >>> address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by >>> automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so >>> there >>> will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what >>> you >>> did with these suggestions. >>> >>> "I", paragraph 2 >>>> OULD be logged as an operational error (subject to rate-limiting). The >>>> AC-fla >>>> ^ >>> It appears that a white space is missing. >>> >>> "I", paragraph 9 >>>> eted according to OSPFv2 [RFC7684]. Thus the Flags field of the BGP-LS >>>> Prefix >>>> ^^^^ >>> A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Thus". > > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
