Early Review of draft-ietf-savnet-inter-domain-problem-statement-20
review-ietf-savnet-inter-domain-problem-statement-20-rtgdir-early-dunbar-2026-07-15-00

The document provides the good and clear analysis. I only have a few issues and
nits.

Minor Issues:
- Section 5.1 says a new mechanism “must seek to achieve zero improper
blocking” in certain scenarios. “Seek to achieve” is somewhat softer than “must
achieve.” I suggest clarifying whether zero improper blocking is a hard
requirement, an aspirational design goal, or required only for the specific
scenarios analyzed in Section 4.

- The terminology section defines both SAV-related information and SAV-specific
information. This distinction is useful, but later requirements sometimes refer
to both together. A short sentence explaining the expected trust model would
help: for example, SAV-related information may come from existing routing/RPKI
sources, while SAV-specific information may require new validation or
authentication rules.

NITS:
- Section 3: s/internet/Internet/

- Section 4.1.1: the first sentence "some prefixes may not propagate from a
customer to all its providers and/or may not propagate transitively… " is very
long, hard to parse. Suggest splitting the sentence.

- Section 4.1.2: "a request is received by the anycast server or location":
what does it mean by "received by the location"?

- Section 5.5: s/for inclusion the table/for inclusion in the table/?

- Section 7: s/Private AS was mentioned in Section 1/Private ASes were
mentioned in Section 1/

Best Regards,
Linda Dunbar