Hi John,
Thanks for the review.
On 13/02/2024 21:36, John Scudder via Datatracker wrote:
In RFC 9092 you have,
Any particular inetnum: object MUST have, at most, one geofeed
reference, whether a remarks: or a proper geofeed: attribute when it
is implemented. If there is more than one, all are ignored.
In this document, you have liberalized from "all are ignored" and now allow
them to coexist:
Any particular inetnum: object SHOULD have, at most, one geofeed
reference, whether a remarks: or a proper geofeed: attribute when it
is implemented. A geofeed: attribute is preferred, of course, if the
RIR supports it. If there is more than one type of attribute in the
intetnum: object, the geofeed: attribute SHOULD be used.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just fine and indeed an improvement, who
doesn't like coexistence after all? But I wonder what changed that made it OK?
In the time since our initial version, our engagement with geolocation
providers has significantly increased. These providers have largely
embraced the solution we proposed, which has opened up a valuable
channel of feedback. They have been unequivocal in their stance: they
won't dismiss any data that could enhance their datasets over a
technicality. We've adjusted our approach to align with this practical
standpoint.
The nit:
192.0.2.0/12 (in Section 3) isn’t what I consider a well-formed prefix, since
the third octet has a set bit but isn’t under the mask. I would’ve said
192.0.0.0/12. (Or better still 192.0/12, but that form seems to be disfavored.)
Thanks!
Ciao,
Massimo
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
