Subject: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 03:34:35 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-10: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.

Thank you to George Michaelson for his shepherd's write-up (including the WG
consensus). Nice to have acknowledged him.

Thank you Jean-Michel Combes for the INT-DIR Last Call review at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-08-intdir-lc-combes-2021-05-14/

The telechat INT-DIR review by Wassim Haddad also seconds a good opinion of
this document.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3 --
Having a standards track document relying on a 'remarks:' attribute looks
really weird. Should it rather be informational ? NB: I understand that
changing the RPSL syntax is mostly mission impossible.

Should the case when both "remarks: Geofeed" and "geofeed" are present but
differ be mentioned ?

-- Section 4 --
What happens if the public key of the certificate is changed? Should the cert
serial number be part of the signature? Or at least mention the obvious that
the signature must be re-executed when the cert if changed (e.g., in section 5).

-- Section 5 --
Is there any reason why the doc shepherd is not acknowledged ?

== NITS ==

I find the use of the colon in "inetnum:" quite annoying and confusing. The use
of quotes in the last § of section 3 is easier to read and parse

-- Section 3 --
Do the examples really need to be in IPv4 ? ;-)

-- Section 4 --
The use of "department" in "getting the department with the Hardware Security
Module" is difficult to understand by non-English native readers (at least for
me as I had to re-read it twice and guess the meaning).

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 16:03:58 -0700

> changing the RPSL syntax is mostly mission impossible.

note that it also specifies the "Geofeed:" attribute

> Should the case when both "remarks: Geofeed" and "geofeed" are present but

you want more/other than

   Any particular inetnum: object MUST have at most, one geofeed
   reference, whether a remarks: or a proper geofeed: attribute when it
   is implemented.  If there is more than one, all are ignored.

> the signature must be re-executed when the cert if changed (e.g., in

added

   If the geofeed file is signed, and the signer's certificate changes,
   the signature in the geofeed file MUST be updated.

> Is there any reason why the doc shepherd is not acknowledged ?

in what way was this insufficient?

The authors also thank George Michaelson, the document shepherd, ...

> I find the use of the colon in "inetnum:" quite annoying and
> confusing.

so say we all.  but it seems to be the convention in the RPSL docs.

> The use of quotes in the last § of section 3 is easier to read and
> parse

i think we're in RDAP land at that point.  perhaps massimo and/pr ggm,
who are more clued in that space could comment.

> Do the examples really need to be in IPv4 ? ;-)

i am old

> -- Section 4 --
> The use of "department" in "getting the department with the Hardware
> Security Module" is difficult to understand by non-English native
> readers (at least for me as I had to re-read it twice and guess the
> meaning).

prefer "part of the company?"

randy

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 05:27:39 +0000

Hello Randy

Thank you for the quick reply, you have replied to all my non-blocking comments. See below for a couple of further comments on your comments, look for EV>

Regards

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: OPSAWG <[email-masked]> on behalf of Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, 20 May 2021 at 01:04
To: "\"Éric Vyncke via Datatracker\"" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG]  Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-10: (with COMMENT)

    you want more/other than

EV> indeed, more than enough. Unsure why I failed to spot this §

    added

EV> sorry, it was a copy & paste error of mine ☹ 

EV> ;-)

    i am old

EV> ;-)

EV> so, it was really a "department" as in "part of the company" now I am unsure whether this discussion is useful, hence I was thinking that I could not parse it.

    randy

    _______________________________________________
    OPSAWG mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg