>Just a minor nit: in the terminology section, P2C and C2P are in uppercase but
>p2p is in lower case. This can be fixed later at the AUTH48 stage
The p in p2p (peer-to-peer) is lower case on purpose.
We have upper case P for Provider.
So we use lower case p in p2p where neither is provider (in the mutual
relationship),
instead the two ASes are lateral peers to each other.
Sriram
From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2019 2:39 AM
To: Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed); The IESG
Cc: draft-ietf-opsec-urpf-improveme...@ietf.org; Sandra Murphy;
opsec-cha...@ietf.org; opsec@ietf.org; Warren Kumari
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on
draft-ietf-opsec-urpf-improvements-03: (with COMMENT)
Thank you Sriram for the updated document.
Just a minor nit: in the terminology section, P2C and C2P are in uppercase but
p2p is in lower case. This can be fixed later at the AUTH48 stage
-éric
On 31/08/2019, 06:46, "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)"
wrote:
Eric,
Thank you for your comments. Sorry about the delay in replying.
We have uploaded a new version and have included changes
reflecting your comments. Please see:
https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Frfcdiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-opsec-urpf-improvements-04.txtdata=02%7C01%7Ckotikalapudi.sriram%40nist.gov%7C1f83276d8d6349219f8508d72dddf2cc%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C637028303598920995sdata=srvqXLDHEnlIwoIZApGGHcVAQJDfUxQb1n60djHlikU%3Dreserved=0
Please also see responses to your comments inline below.
-- Abstract --
>The abstract reads like 'promises' but not as a summary of the document. Is
>there any chance to add 2 lines summarizing the 'how' ?
>
Added some more wording in the abstract to address your comment.
We have summarized the 'how' in the intro with a whole paragraph.
Probably better not to make the abstract overly long.
>-- Section 1.1 --
>I am sure that by now you know that you have to use RFC 8174 boilerplate
;-)
>
Yes. Done.
>-- Section 2.2 --
>For completeness and symmetry with section 2.3, please explain which
packets
>will be dropped.
>
Good catch. Done.
>-- Section 2.3 --
>Suggestion: define "RPF list" before first use (even if mostly obvious).
>
>Please define "lateral peer" and why it is different to any other "peer".
>
Added Section 1.1. "Terminology" per your suggestion.
We've provided definitions of these terms and more there.
>-- Section 3.1 --
>Please define the "cone" used in this section. First time that I ever read
this
>term and the RIPE paper does not explain it either (of course I am not a
>routing expert).
>
Definition of customer cone is also included in the Terminology section 1.1.
>== NITS ==
>
>-- Section 1 --
>Beside the intro, this section also introduces some terminology wording.
May I
>suggest to have a (sub)section about "terminology" ?
>
Good suggestion. Done.
>-- Section 2.1 --
>CMTS was introduced as an acronym but not DSLAM.
>
>
Mention of DSLAM was not essential. So it is removed in the updated version.
Mention of CMTS, PDN-GW is sufficient in that context
and they are introduced.
Sriram
___
OPSEC mailing list
OPSEC@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
