Subject: [GROW] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:03:48 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-07: 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-grow-filtering-threats/

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

I have a non-blocking comment related to the characterization of the
unexpected traffic flows (and a nit).

Section 6. (Security Considerations)  Throughout the document the
unexpected traffic flows were characterized as potential policy
violations, not as routing security issues as is done here.  I know that
the text has gone around the point of malicious intent (or not) before,
but I think that if you’re going to mention that it could be a "potential
routing security issue”, then you should say something more about it
(even if it is the result of non-malicious intent) — or just leave it at
policy violations.

Nit:

The example in Section 2.2.1. (Unexpected traffic flows caused by
remotely triggered filtering of more specific prefixes) didn’t look good
to me at first..then I re-read the text until I discovered that the other
ASes (including 64505) are peering with both 64502 and 64503.  Because of
how Figure 4 is drawn, it looks like 64505 is only connected to 64502.  
Maybe centering that AS will avoid confusion.