Dave, thank you for your comments and see below for follow-up: Fred
> -----Original Message----- > From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Thaler via > Datatracker > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 2:37 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-12 > > EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments. > > > > Reviewer: Dave Thaler > Review result: On the Right Track > > I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-12.txt. > These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area > Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just > like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve > them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more > details on the INT Directorate, see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>. > > This was a requested "early review" so not surprisingly needs some additional > work before being done. > > Technical Issues: > 1) Section 3 explains that ASNs need not be coordinated with IANA since > they're > used in a separate BGP routing instance, but they still have to be unique > within the ATN/IPS routing system. However, no explanation is provided about > how to ensure such uniqueness. Who coordinates them then, to ensure that are > unique? In my view, this has to be solved before the document could be used. This is similar to a comment raised earlier by the Security area director who asked what entity would coordinate the security key PKI. For the ATN/IPS, the over-arching authority will be the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) but there may be a sub-organization within ICAO that would serve as the functional equivalent of an "ATN/IPS-specific IANA". Would it suffice for us to say that the assignment of ASNs would be coordinated by "ICAO-IANA" while explaining that ICAO would be required to stand up such an organization if one does not already exist? > 2) Page 13 mentions that selection of a network-based s-ASBR could be done via > any of several mechanisms, but there are no references provided and it seems > that those mechanisms would require a specification as interoperability would > be required. The ATN-BGP document will make use of an approach such as that specified in [OMNI] as one candidate example, but not necessarily the only example. Would: "see: e.g., [OMNI], etc. for example approaches." suffice? > 3) Top of page 14 talks about "registering" addresses, but I > couldn't tell what protocol it was referring to or where such addresses would > be registered. Clarify. Again, [OMNI] and others provide examples. Would adding a citation suffice? > 4) AERO and OMNI are listed as informative references > but are used in text as if they are normative, not merely examples. That is, > as phrased the document seems to only be useful in an AERO/OMNI context. Is > it > really specific to those or could other things (maybe RFC 5213 or whatever > else) be used instead? If the intent is to keep them as informative > references, then either they should be used only as examples or they should be > moved to be normative references. Of course normative references from an IETF > document to (currently) non-IETF drafts would be something that the RTGWG may > want to carefully consider. We will want for the AERO/OMNI documents to remain as Informative references; ICAO is currently considering other technologies that might be used in conjunction with ATN-BGP instead of AERO/OMNI. > Editorial comments: > * Page 4 would be a lot easier to understand if there were a high level > topology diagram there. * See > https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2017/05/draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-12-DthalerReview.pdf > for full review with above, and other editorial, comments in context. OK, thanks - I will check this and make any necessary adjustments. > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
