Subject: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:31:17 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model-30: 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-rtgwg-policy-model/

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

Thanks to Dan Harkins for the SECDIR review.

** Section 5.

   If none of the policy statement conditions
   are satisfied, then evaluation of the current policy definition
   stops, and the next policy definition in the chain is evaluated.

Is it worth mentioning in this paragraph that various implementation specific
optimizations may be possible.  For example, Section 4.2 notes policy match
conditions.  If the match condition is ALL and the first condition is not
satisfied, is it necessary to evaluate the next policy statement?

** Section 8.  The text helpful notes the read sensitivity of
“/routing-policy/policy-definitions/policy-definition” with “Additionally,     
 policies and their attendant conditions and actions should be considered
proprietary and disclosure could be used to ascertain partners, customers, and
supplies.”  It seems like “defined-sets/prefix-sets” could also reveal these
relationships with partners, customers or suppliers.

---

From: Yingzhen Qu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 23:25:03 -0700

HI Roman,

Thank you for your review and comments. Please see my answers inline.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

> On Aug 10, 2021, at 12:31 PM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

[Yingzhen]: Personally I don’t think it’s really necessary. It’s up to implementations, like in your example, a good implementation will “break” out of the comparison if there is “False” in condition ALL.
> relationships with partners, customers or suppliers.

[Yingzhen]: The policy-definition may refer to a prefix-sets, and it definitely reveal more information. You can config a list of prefix-sets, but not use them in any policy definition.