Hi,

Please find my review, as member of the INT Area Directorate, of the following
document:

*** GENERAL COMMENT(S)/QUESTION(S) ***
o RPSL
Warning: I am not a RPSL expert

*** DEEP REVIEW ***
Network Working Group                                            R. Bush
Internet-Draft                                              IIJ & Arrcus
Intended status: Standards Track                              M. Candela

<JMC>
IMHO, the Intended status of this document should not be “Standard Track” but “Experimental”.
Indeed:
(1) RFC8805 status is Informational
(2) Many solutions are proposed for a single problem (i.e., remarks: attribute v.s. geofeed: attribute)
(2) Authors of this document “leave global agreement of RPSL modification to the relevant parties” (sic)
(3) This document doesn’t update officially RFC2622/RFC4012
(4) There is at least an experimentation (i.e., geofeed-finder)
</JMC>

                     Finding and Using Geofeed Data
                 draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-08

Abstract

   This document describes how to find and authenticate geofeed data.

<JMC>
This abstract is too short for me ...
Potential new text (don’t hesitate to modify it):
A network operator can publish a mapping of IP address prefixes to simplified geolocation information, colloquially termed a "geolocation feed" or “geofeed”.
This document describes solutions to add geofeed data inside RPSL based database.
This document also describes a solution, based on RPKI, to authenticate geofeed data.
</JMC>

<snip>

1.  Introduction

<snip>

   This document specifies how to augment the Routing Policy
   Specification Language (RPSL) [RFC4012] inetnum: class to refer

<JMC>
s/[RFC4012]/[RFC2622]
BTW, have you an IETF reference regarding the inetnum: class?
Because, the term “inetnum” is neither inside RFC2622 nor RFC4012.
</JMC>

   specifically to geofeed data CSV files, and how to prudently use
   them.  In all places inetnum: is used, inet6num: should also be
   assumed [RFC4012].

<snip>

3.  inetnum: Class

<snip>

   Ideally, RPSL would be augmented to define a new RPSL geofeed:
   attribute in the inetnum: class.  Until such time, this document
   defines the syntax of a Geofeed remarks: attribute which contains an
   HTTPS URL of a geofeed file.  The format of the inetnum: geofeed
   attribute MUST be as in this example, "remarks: Geofeed ", where the
   token "Geofeed" is case sensitive, followed by a URL which will vary,

<JMC>
s/the token "Geofeed" is case sensitive/ the token "Geofeed" MUST be case sensitive
s/followed by a URL/and MUST be followed by a URL
</JMC>

   but MUST refer only to a single [RFC8805] geofeed file.

       inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example
       remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed.csv

   While we leave global agreement of RPSL modification to the relevant
   parties, we specify that a proper geofeed: attribute in the inetnum:
   class be simply "geofeed: " followed by a URL which will vary, but

<JMC>
s/be simply "geofeed: "/MUST be simply "geofeed: "
s/followed by a URL/and MUST be followed by a URL
</JMC>
   MUST refer only to a [RFC8805] geofeed file.

       inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example
       geofeed: https://example.com/geofeed.csv

<snip>

   Until all producers of inetnum:s, i.e. the RIRs, state that they have
   migrated to supporting a geofeed: attribute, consumers looking at
   inetnum:s to find geofeed URLs MUST be able to consume both the
   remarks: and geofeed: forms.  This not only implies that the RIRs
   support the geofeed: attribute, but that all registrants have
   migrated any inetnum:s from remarks: use to geofeed:s.

<JMC>
IMHO, the MUST should not be associated to service users but to the RIRs.
Potential new text (don’t hesitate to modify it):
Until all registrants, for a specific RIR, have migrated any inetnum: from remarks: use to geofeed: use, this RIR MUST support both the remarks: and geofeed: forms.
Moving this paragraph inside Operationnal Considerations section?
</JMC>

   Currently, the registry data published by ARIN is not the same RPSL
   as the other registries; therefore, when fetching from ARIN via FTP

<JMC>
Maybe add RFC7485 as reference?
</JMC>

   "NetRange" attribute/key MUST be treated as "inetnum" and the
   "Comment" attribute MUST be treated as "remarks".

<snip>

5.  Operational Considerations

<snip>

   The geofeed files SHOULD be published over and fetched using https
   [RFC8446].

<JMC>
s/[RFC8446]/[RFC2818]
</JMC>

Thanks in advance for your replies.

Best regards,

JMC.