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

From: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:18:53 -0700

Brian Haberman 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 no issues with the publication of this document.  The following
are simply voiced for your consideration...

1. I think the comment in 3.2 about how difficult it is to get routing
policies from external entities is undersold.  Most organizations won't
share that information since it might reveal business arrangements they
consider proprietary.  I would suggest being explicit in the cause for
the difficulty in obtaining such information.

2. Section 4.2.1 seems to be hinting at a UI deficiency in routing
platforms in that a route filter installed in the control plane should
automatically result in an ACL installed in the forwarding plane.  That
sounds like an intriguing capability.

3. All of the approaches described in section 4 seem littered with
caveats on their effectiveness. Is there any definitive data on the
effectiveness of these techniques?