Sorry for not replying sooner:
Check with the WG chair and the AD. My comments are to be treated like
anyone else in the WG or during Last Call who made comments on the
document.
pr
On 20 Apr 2016, at 13:49, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote:
Pete,
I am working on the revision. When I am done making the changes,
should I upload a new version using the IETF submission tool
or should I simply email the .txt or .xml only to you/Gen-art team?
Thanks.
Sriram
-----Original Message-----
From: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 6:02 PM
To: Pete Resnick <presn...@qti.qualcomm.com>; General Area Review Team
<gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of
draft-ietf-grow-route-leak-problem-definition-04
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
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art