Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-10: 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-opsawg-9092-update/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Tim Hollebeek for the SECDIR review. ** Section 3. Editorial. Consider this clarification. OLD At the time of publishing this document, change control effectively lies in the operator community. NEW At the time of publishing this document, change control of RPSL effectively lies in the operator community. ** Section 3. 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. Is there a reason that the second SHOULD, to prefer the geofeed: attribute isn’t a MUST? Otherwise, there isn’t deterministic behavior on which attribute will be used and geofeed: won’t necessarily be preferred. ** Section 3 For inetnum:s covering the same address range, or an inetnum: with both remarks: and geofeed: attributes, a signed geofeed file SHOULD be preferred over an unsigned file. Is the net result of this guidance that when encountering a both types of attributes, and despite preferring the geofeed, an implementation still needs to download both and see which one is signed? Effectively: If there is more than one type of attribute in the intetnum: object, the geofeed: attribute SHOULD be used unless the remarks: is signed? ** Section 4. To minimize the load on RIRs' WHOIS [RFC3912] services, the RIR's FTP [RFC0959] services SHOULD be used for large-scale access to gather inetnum:s with geofeed references. This uses efficient bulk access instead of fetching via brute-force search through the IP space. This guidance was in RFC9092 (July 2021). Has anything changed in the ecosystem that would allow the use of at least SFTP? _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
