Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-07: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-slurm/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The directorate reviews have some good comments, especially about expanding acronyms/defining terms. I think Section 3.3 would benefit from greater clarity about individual components of the JSON array that is the value of the "slurmTarget" element, versus that element itself. (Also, slurmTarget appears to be mandatory, so talking about cases where it is present seems strange, and presumably a nonempty value being present is the desired criterion.) I'm also not entirely sure I understand the intended semantics -- when first introduced in Section 3.2, we say that "all targets MUST be acceptable to the RP". (Presumably that includes both ASN and FQDN entries.) Does this mean that if the same SLURM file is provided to multiple RPs, those RPs both need to be "responsible for" all the ASNs and FQDNS contained therein? Would this present a limit on the ability to reuse SLURM files for multiple recipients within a single administrative domain (that may span multiple ASNs and FQDNs)? Some editorial suggestions follow. Abstract: OLD: [...] ISPs can also be able to use the RPKI to validate the path of a BGP route. NEW: [...] ISPs can also use the RPKI to validate the path of a BGP route. Section 3.2 OLD: o A SLURM Version indication that MUST be 1 NEW: o A SLURM Version indication. This document specifies version 1. Also, in * Zero or more target elements. In this version of SLURM, there are two types of values for the target: ASN or Fully Qualified Domain Name(FQDN). If more than one target line is present, all targets MUST be acceptable to the RP. What's the difference between a target element and a target line? Section 3.5 (both subsections): "is locally configured with" does not mention SLURM at all as being involved in that configuration; perhaps it should. Section 4.2 [...] To do so, the RP MUST check the entries of SLURM file with regard to overlaps of the INR assertions and report errors to the sources that created these SLURM files in question. The "report errors to the sources" part seems ineligible for MUST-level requirement. Also, in case of conflict, does the "MUST NOT use them" apply to all SLURM files, only the ones with directly conflicting inputs, or only enough files to remove the conflict? Section 6 I'm always a little sad to see security-relevant functionality (such as the transport with authenticity and integrity protection of SLRUM files over the network) left as out of scope with no examples of reasonable usage given. I also wonder if we would benefit from a little discussion of the potential routing issues that could arise from using a "broken" (or deliberately adversarial) SLURM file, though I expect that the target audience is probably pretty familiar with these already. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr