Hi Ran, Thanks for addressing my comments.
Just as a note, in the must statement, the check for “../anycast-flag = ’true’” is redundant or may lead to inaccurate output. The whole idea of the must statement is to check the condition stated by the must statement *before* allowing you to set the value of the flag (to true). Since the flag is set to ‘false’ by default, your must statement will always fail the check. I would suggest you remove the first part of the must statement that checks for ‘anycast-flag’ and just check for the ’node-flag’ to be set to ’true’. Cheers. > On Jan 15, 2026, at 4:34 PM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Acee，Mahesh， > > > Thank you for your feedback and the insightful suggestion. > I have updated the draft accordingly. You can review the changes via the diff > link below: > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-lsr-anycast-flag-11&url2=draft-ietf-lsr-anycast-flag-12&difftype=--html>https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-lsr-anycast-flag-11&url2=draft-ietf-lsr-anycast-flag-12&difftype=--html. > > BR, > Ran > Original > From: AceeLindem <[email protected]> > To: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>; > Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>;[email protected] > <[email protected]>;lsr-chairs <[email protected]>;lsr > <[email protected]>; > Date: 2026年01月12日 06:36 > Subject: [Lsr] Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on > draft-ietf-lsr-anycast-flag-11: (with COMMENT) > 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] > > Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
