Subject: [Idr] Erik Kline's Yes on draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:23:58 -0700

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis-22: Yes

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-idr-rfc5575bis/

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

[ sections 4.{1,3} ]
Thank you for the clarifying examples at the boundary.

[ sections 4.2.2.{4,5,6} ]
What about non-{TCP,UDP} protocols with ports?  Should operators be able to
express a flow spec for SCTP traffic (e.g. within a 3GPP network context)?

There's no mention of any such support in 5575, so I'll presume this sort of
thing is left to another document (whether or not that document exists).

[ section 5.1 ]
My reading of this is that sorting between 2 different specifications each
with source and destinations prefixes must always be examined by destination
prefix first (because of the component ordering restriction in section 4.2).

Is this correct?

[ section 7 ]
"may interfere with each other even contradict"    -->
"may interfere with each other or even contradict" ?

[ section 11.2 ]
"by a an 8-bit" --> "by an 8-bit" ?