A Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) Testbed and Deployment Experience
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Ross Callon) No Objection
Lars Eggert No Objection
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."
(Pasi Eronen) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
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.
(Chris Newman) No Objection
(Tim Polk) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) No Objection
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'.