IETF conflict review for draft-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations
conflict-review-moura-dnsop-authoritative-recommendations-02
Yes
No Objection
Erik Kline
Roman Danyliw
(Alvaro Retana)
(John Scudder)
(Martin Duke)
(Martin Vigoureux)
(Murray Kucherawy)
(Robert Wilton)
(Zaheduzzaman Sarker)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Éric Vyncke
Yes
Comment
(2021-12-06 for -01)
Sent
Short and useful document and related indeed to DNSOP.
Erik Kline
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2021-12-15 for -01)
Not sent
This is the right conflict-review response.
Having read the document:
Section 3.4.1
They can withdraw its routes, pre-prepend its AS route to some or all of
its neighbors, perform other traffic shifting tricks (such as reducing
route announcement propagation using BGP communities[RFC1997]), or by
communicating with its upstream network providers to apply filtering
(potentially using FlowSpec [RFC8955]).
I suppose the work of the IETF DOTS WG might be one way to effectuate
such communication to apply filtering.
Warren Kumari Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2021-12-01 for -00)
Not sent
As an aside, I personally find document like this useful.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Not sent
John Scudder Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Not sent
Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Not sent
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Not sent
Murray Kucherawy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Not sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Not sent
Zaheduzzaman Sarker Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Not sent