Subject: [Sidrops] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-02: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 09:49:02 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-02: 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress/

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

"Therefore it SHOULD be possible to specify an origin validation
   policy which MUST BE run after such non-deterministic policies."

The normative language here doesn't quite make sense. "MUST BE" is not a
normative keyword and the construction "SHOULD ... which MUST" is a little
confusing. I would suggest something like:

An origin validation policy that is required to be run after such
non-deterministic policies SHOULD be specified.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2020 10:07:02 -0700

> confusing.

point

> I would suggest something like:
> 

nope.  that says the op SHOULD specify the policy; when MAY would be the
appropriate point here.

how about a simpler hack (with context)?

  Configurations may have complex policy where the final announced
  origin AS may not be easily predicted before these policies have been
  run.  Therefore it SHOULD be possible to specify an origin validation
  policy which will run after all such non-deterministic policies.

i suspect some might suggest the point of the draft should really be
s/SHOULD/MUST/

randy

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 13:41:39 -0400

Hi Randy,

> On Apr 6, 2020, at 1:07 PM, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I tend to prefer <subject> SHOULD <verb>, but your proposal is an improvement over what is in the draft.

Thanks,
Alissa