Subject: [GROW] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:57:51 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-grow-irr-routing-policy-considerations-06: 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-irr-routing-policy-considerations/

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

[My comments are similar to Alia’s review of –05.]

It is somewhat hard to pinpoint the expected outputs promised in the
Introduction, where is says that the "purpose of this document is to
catalog past issues...  Additionally, it provides a discussion regarding
which of these issues still pose problems in practice, and which are no
longer obstacles…”  Section 3 seems to provide a roadmap of the document
pointing out the pieces covered:  "First, accuracy and integrity of data
contained within the IRR.  Second, the Resource Policy Specification
Language (RPSL) used to represent various types of data in the IRR. 
Third, operation of the IRR infrastructure, i.e.: synchronization of
resources from one IRR to other IRRs.  Finally, the methods related to
extraction of policy from the IRR and the input plus activation of that
policy within routers.”    While that is ok, there’s no clear correlation
with the TOC.

The contents of the document don’t have to strictly be reflected in the
TOC, but it would be nice to at least call out which sections cover the
points listed above.  According to my reading, that would be 4 (for #1),
5.1 (for #3) and 5.2, 6 and 7 (for #4).  It is not clear to me that
independent issues related to RPSL (and not related to #1) are
covered..any are intermingled in Section 4.

Going back to the purpose of the document.  Section 8 (Summary) says that
"many of the problems that have traditionally stifled IRR deployment
have, themselves, become historical”.  But in my reading the only issue
that seems to not be an obstacle anymore is the graceful application of
policy in BGP (Section 6 and 7).  If the intent was to highlight others
as non-issues then that should be made clearer.

Nits:
Section 4. (Accuracy and Integrity of Data Contained within the IRR)
s/section/sections
Section 5.1. (Replication of Resources Among IRRs)  s/has a several
weaknesses/has several weaknesses
Section 5.2. (Updating Routing Policies from Updated IRR Resources)  s/An
ISP's customers/An ISP's customer