Robert, Pierre:
Many thanks for your detailed review and re-review, Robert. And thanks for
Pierre and
others for taking into account the comments; I can see that the document has
improved.
As for the remaining issue of authors speaking vs. IETF speaking. I agree with
the
principle that Robert lays out. But I have also reviewed the document and given
the
specific text and the nature of the document (Informational RFC), I do not see
a big problem with the current text. At least not something that would be
Discuss-worthy
from my end.
FWIW, more generally, a document provides information, and there may or may not
be
IETF opinion backing that opinion. Standards track documents and BCP are
true IETF recommendations. In my view, in those documents, even if they might
say
“the authors recommend XYZ” that really carries the weight of the IETF opinion.
For the informational document, there is no requirement that it carries the
weight
of an IETF recommendation. But of course, where it is clear that there is an
IETF opinion,
it might still say that explicitly.
Jari
On 17 Aug 2015, at 20:48, Robert Sparks <rjsparks(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com> wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-07
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 17 Aug 2015
IETF LC End Date: 2 Jul 2015
IESG Telechat date: 20 Aug 2015
Summary: Ready with nits (but these nits may be discuss worthy)
Nits/editorial comments:
Thanks for removing the text suggesting when operators might charge
each other.
I still find the document ambiguous about what it's stating as the
consensus of the IETF. In the places you changed how you used
"we", you did the very thing I asked to to resist - you say things now
like "The authors recommend". What is the IETF saying? Is it that the
IETF agrees that's what the authors recommend? Or is the IETF recommending
this.
This needs to be edited to speak _only_ in terms of what the IETF
recommends. I'm classifying this as a NIT since it's editorial, but I'm
worried it's more than that. I encourage the IESG to consider whether
this is a bigger issue.
You still draw this conclusion:
"The authors observe that proactive approaches can be
complex to implement and can lead to undesired effects, and thus
conclude that the reactive approach is the more reasonable
recommendation to deal with unexpected flows."
What is the IETF consensus position on what is more reasonable, and is it
even necessary for the IETF to recommend one approach over the other.
Why is it not sufficient to simply document the considerations with each
approach and stop there?
Not much was done with my last suggestion. I still think the document needs
a strong editorial revision along the lines suggested below.
On 6/24/15 6:19 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-grow-filtering-threats-06
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 24-Jun-2015
IETF LC End Date: 2-Jul-2015
IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled for a telechat
Summary: Ready with nits
From looking at the document history and list archives, this document's been
around for some time, and has had some editorial push already.
The unintended consequences it highlights are interesting, and it will be
useful to operators to know these possible causes of unexpected behavior.
I encourage another strong editing pass before publication.
This is being published as an IETF-stream document. When published it
reflects IETF consensus.
There are places in the text that I think are problematic given that status.
The issues are editorial, and I expect they will be easy to address.
The document uses "we" frequently. Originally, that meant the authors. It's
ambiguous what it means in an IETF-stream document. I suggest editing out
all occurrences. Try to avoid simply changing "we" to "the authors" - find a
way to reflect what the IETF is saying here.
Is the last paragraph of 4.1 an IETF consensus position on how operators
might charge one another? It would be good to find a way to word this that
look more like statements of fact and less like charging advice.
The document draws some conclusions that I think are unnecessary. For
instance, "Therefore, we conclude that the reactive approach is the more
reasonable recommendation to deal with unexpected flows." Why does the IETF
need to say that (and is it an IETF consensus statement)? It would be
enough, I think, to reduce the discussion in these sections to calling out
the issues with each approach.
Please simplify the sentences, and avoid passive construction. For instance,
"It can be considered problematic to be causing unexpected traffic flows in
other ASes." can be much shorter. After you do that, I think you'll find it
easier to identify and collapse sections of redundant text.
RjS
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail