Subject: Re: [savnet] Welcome to the savnet mailing list - gap analysis

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:33:14 -0500

I look forward to comments from other folks on this list about the slides.

Over all, this gap analysis deck looks good.  I have two minor comments 
that push in opposite directions (sorry.)

First, I think at least on slide 2 we should mention that any solution 
needs to be incrementally deployable.  Which suggests that the same 
topic should be mentioned at the end of the deck.

The opposite issue is that covering this material in the 15 minutes 
allocated for it in the agenda will be difficult.  I have trouble seeing 
what to cut, but we do need to shorten it.

Thank you,
Joel

On 2/28/2022 9:29 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Welcome to join the savnet mailing list. The topic of this mailing list 
> is about source address validation (SAV) in intra-domain and 
> inter-domain networks. We will have a BoF meeting about this topic on 
> Mar 24 in IETF 113 (refer to the agenda: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/agenda.html 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/113/agenda.html>). The link of the 
> BoF proposal is 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bofreq-li-sav-for-intra-and-inter-domain-networks/ 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bofreq-li-sav-for-intra-and-inter-domain-networks/>. 
> 
> 
> Enclosed please find the presentation slides we prepared for the BoF 
> meeting, one about the gap analysis and one about the solution 
> framework. Your comments and feedback will be highly appreciated. Hope 
> that our discussions in this mailing list can help the BoF meeting more 
> efficient and more effective.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Dan Li
> 
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:40:29 -0500

I look forward to comments from folks on the list.

First, and particularly, I really like the set of open questions and 
issues.  that is really helpful.

On slide 5, I think there is one technical point that could use 
improvement.  You refer to node B checking for local subnets / networks. 
  I know what local subnets are.  I do not think "local networks" are 
well defined.  I think your intent is to terminate reports that are only 
destined to destinations node B considers to be customers.  If so, this 
needs to be reworded slightly.

I am concerned that the deck may be too long to cover.   In this case 
the right answer may be to plan to go through the questions slides 
quickly in your presentation, and then spend more time on whichever 
questions the room (virtual and in person) finds most relevant.

As a minor point, I still find referring to the protocol behavior as 
probing to be misleading.  The messages are notifications.  They are not 
probes which produce informational responses.

Yours,
Joel