A Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) Testbed and Deployment Experience
RFC 5210
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert
No Objection
Comment
(2008-05-20)
Unknown
I'm a little disappointed that the document focuses so much on describing the design of the testbed system as well as various other design options, deployment considerations, etc. I had hoped to see some hard measurement data gathered during the experiment that would quantify system behavior and performance. Instead, the document just says "all worked as expected."
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-05-21)
Unknown
I like the idea of such documents and the document itself - documenting the implementation and deployment of a proof-of-concept prototye of new solutions is very useful and I like to see more of such documents based on code and experimentation in real networks showing uo in the IETF. I would suggest a change in the title of the document. Instead of 'SAVA Testbed and Experiences to Date' which seems to be rather exhaustive (after all the SAVA concepts and architecture have been dicussed for a while and no absolute claims can be made that other experiments do not exist to date) I would rather suggest something like 'A SAVA Testbed and Deployment Experience'.
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-05-19)
Unknown
Please remove references from the abstract (i.e., [Wu07]). Section 1: s/accomplishedaccurately/accomplished accurately/ Figure 5: s/.REG/REG/ Section 5.2 describes future work being considered for less stable network environment. More details about key management and the cryptographic algorithm are needed for that work to go forward. Perhaps that is left to a future document.
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown