Pete, Thank you for your review and comments. I'll be happy to incorporate all the changes you've suggested. I've been a bit swamped. What is a reasonable turnaround time for these? OK if I get this done within the next week or two? When I am done making the changes, should I upload a version -05 or should I email the .txt or .xml only to you/Gen-art team?
Sriram ----------- From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presn...@qti.qualcomm.com] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 12:28 PM To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>; a...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition....@ietf.org; IETF discussion list <i...@ietf.org> Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. Document: draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04 Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review Date: 2016-03-21 IETF LC End Date: 2016-03-28 Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in this review. Major issues: None. Minor issues: * Figure 1, along with the discussion of it in section 3, was confusing to me. First of all, am I correct that the example displays two leaks? That is, there's the leak from AS3 to ISP2, and then there are the propagated leaks from ISP2 to the rest of the world. Also, "(P)" seems to be used as both a leaked prefix (from ISP1 through AS3 to ISP2 and then propagated from there) as well as what looks to be a normal prefix update between ISP1 and ISP2. Are all of the occurrences of "(P)" in Figure 1 identical? Or is the prefix update between ISP1 and ISP2 also a leak? What leaks is Figure 1 intended to show? * In 3.1: "The leak often succeeds because...". Do you really means "succeeds" and not "occurs"? If so, what does "succeeds" mean in this context? * The description in section 3.5, starting from "However", really needs a complete rewrite. It's ungrammatical to the point that I'm not really sure I understand what it is trying to say. Nits/editorial comments: * I've mentioned before that I find the "academic research paper" style a bit jarring in IETF documents. I particularly don't like the use of "we" and "us", since it's not clear whether "we" is the authors (which is how it's used in academic papers, but is inappropriate for an IETF document), the WG, the IETF, etc. Instead, I would replace all instances of "we" with "this document", or simply re-word into the passive, since a subject is rarely needed for these sentences. For example, the abstract could be rewritten as such: A systemic vulnerability of the Border Gateway Protocol routing system, known as 'route leaks', has received significant attention in recent years. Frequent incidents that result in significant disruptions to Internet routing are labeled "route leaks", but to date a common definition of the term has been lacking. This document provides a working definition of route leaks, keeping in mind the real occurrences that have received significant attention. Further, this document attempts to enumerate (though not exhaustively) different types of route leaks based on observed events on the Internet. The aim is to provide a taxonomy that covers several forms of route leaks that have been observed and are of concern to Internet user community as well as the network operator community. Please do similar edits throughout. Similarly, the referencing of authors by name seems like bad form for an IETF document. OLD This document builds on and extends earlier work in the IETF by Dickson [draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-def][draft-dickson-sidr-route- leak-reqts]. NEW This document builds on and extends earlier work in the IETF [draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak-def][draft-dickson-sidr-route-leak- reqts]. END OLD Mauch [Mauch] observes that these are anomalies and potentially route leaks because very large ISPs such as ATT, Sprint, Verizon, and Globalcrossing do not in general buy transit services from each other. However, he also notes that there are exceptions when one very large ISP does indeed buy transit from another very large ISP, and accordingly exceptions are made in his detection algorithm for known cases. NEW [Mauch] observes that these are anomalies and potentially route leaks because very large ISPs such as ATT, Sprint, Verizon, and Globalcrossing do not in general buy transit services from each other. However, it also notes that there are exceptions when one very large ISP does indeed buy transit from another very large ISP, and accordingly exceptions are made in its detection algorithm for known cases. END * Last paragraph in section 2: I'm left wondering what sorts of things that other folks might consider leaks aren't covered by the definition. Perhaps you want to mention that? * In 3.6, when you say "more specifics", are you using that as a noun to mean "more specific prefixes"? It's very hard to read in its current form. * Section 5 is superfluous. I'd delete it. * On a side note, I must say that the writing style of the "Example incidents" caused me quite a bit of giggling. "Examples include symmetrical book stacking, just like the Philadelphia mass turbulence of 1947, and the biggest interdimensional crossrip since the Tunguska blast of 1909 [GhostBusters1984]." Reading them aloud helps. :-) (No need for a change; they're fine as is. They just sound funny to a person not in the field.) pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
