SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) Source Address Validation Improvement (SAVI)
RFC 7219

[Ballot comment]
1.
First thing I checked is the document track/title/abstract
I was surprised by "implementation" in the title for a standards track RFC
http://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?title=implementation&pubstatus[]=Standards+Track&std_trk=Any&pub_date_type=any
shows usage of "implementation" along with "status", "notes", "requirements", but not for a specification.
What you mean here is:
SEND-based Source-Address Validation Specification
Or even better (and simply)
SEND-based Source-Address Validation
Then I realized that "Implementation" comes from the SAVI WG name, and that the acronym is used a lot within the draft.
Hey, wait a minute:
- In the 3 existing RFC titles at https://ietf.org/wg/savi/, the I stands for Improvements
- And the WG name (which we agree will eventually disappear) stands for Improvements
So not sure any longer what's the right thing to do.
A minimal change might be to replace "implementation" by "improvements" within the document.
I'll trust the responsible AD anyway (so feel free to ignore my comment)


2.
Linked to the previous comment
OLD
  In the case the SEND SAVI device is a switch that supports customer
  VLANs [IEEE.802-1Q.2005], the SEND SAVI implementation MUST behave as
  if there was one SEND SAVI process per customer VLAN. 
NEW:
  In the case the SEND SAVI device is a switch that supports customer
  VLANs [IEEE.802-1Q.2005], the SEND SAVI specification MUST behave as
  if there was one SEND SAVI process per customer VLAN. 


3.
OLD:
Abstract

  This memo describes SEND SAVI, a mechanism to provide source address
  validation using the SEND protocol. 

NEW:
Abstract

  This memo specifies SEND SAVI, a mechanism to provide source address
  validation using the SEND protocol.

4.
draft-ietf-savi-framework is now RFC 7039


5.
FCFS acronym and link to RFC 6620


6.
Interesting in the answer to Brian's point #2
  Section 3.2 mentions a need to configure trust anchor.  Given the proposed
  network topology needed for this document, is there any operational guidance
  that could be provided on where the trust anchors should be located?

[Ballot comment]

- Many thanks for 5.4 and for handling a lot of the
other issues that caused earlier discusses on savi
stuff from me.

- I agree with Brian's comment wrt installing trust
anchors.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard is being requested.

Based on RFC 2026 and RFC 6410, this is the proper type of RFC.

This type of RFC is indicated in the title page header.


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents.
The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This memo describes SEND SAVI, a mechanism to provide source address
validation using the SEND protocol. The proposed mechanism is intended to
complement ingress filtering techniques to provide a finer granularity on
the control of the source addresses used.

Working Group Summary:

There is SAVI WG consensus behind the document.

Document Quality:

This document was thoroughly reviewed by Ana Kukec, Tony Cheneau, Greg
Daley and Jean-Michel Combes.

Personnel:

The Document Shepherd is Jean-Michel Combes (jeanmichel.combes at gmail.com),
as savi WG chair.

The Responsible Area Director is Ted Lemon (ted.lemon at nominum.com)

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
IESG.

During his review, the Document Shepherd focused on these main points:

- Compliance with "Source Address Validation Improvement Framework"
document (draft-ietf-framework-06)

- Compliance with issues raised during the IESG review for "FCFS SAVI:
First-Come, First-Served Source Address Validation Improvement for Locally
Assigned IPv6 Addresses" (RFC 6620)

- Compliance with SEND specifications

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?

The document Shepherd have no concerns about the depth or breadth of the
reviews that have been performed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.

As the csi WG is closed now, the document Shepherd thinks there is no more
place to request a review from SEND experts. So, the document Shepherd
thinks this document doesn't need review from a particular or from broader
perspective.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG
should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with
certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a
need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

The Document Shepperd has no specific concerns or issues with this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

Each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required
for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already
been filed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent
the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or
does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG consensus is strong behind this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email
messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate
email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

Nobody has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The Document Shepherd didn't find any ID nits in this document.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review is required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

All references within this document have been identified as either
normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There are no normative references that are not ready for advancement or are
otherwise in an unclear state.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last
Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the
document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is
discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG
considers it unnecessary.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the
initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has
been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document has no actions for IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

This document has no actions for IANA.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language,
such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

This document doesn't include sections written in a formal language.

[Ballot comment]
I have a few non-blocking comments that I would like the authors to consider...

1. I support the feedback provided by Adrian and Barry.  There are many aspects of this draft that could be improved using their feedback.

2. Section 3.2 mentions a need to configure trust anchor.  Given the proposed network topology needed for this document, is there any operational guidance that could be provided on where the trust anchors should be located?

3. It is unclear in section 3.3.1 as to who is doing the processing/validating of transit packets.  I assume it is the router/switch, but it would be most helpful to explicitly mention which devices need to be involved here.

4. The Introduction could be improved by including some discussion on the relationship between the SAVI SEND approach and RFC 6620.

[Ballot comment]
-- Section 1 --

  Scalability of a distributed SAVI system comprised of multiple SEND
  SAVI devices is preserved by means of a deployment scenario in which
  SEND SAVI devices form a "protection perimeter".  In this deployment
  scenario, validation is only performed when the packet ingress to the
  protection perimeter.

In the first sentence, we have one of my ultra-pedantic pet peeves that no one really cares about: the correct use of "comprise" is that the whole comprises the parts (or is composed of the parts).  So, "SAVI system comprising multiple SEND SAVI devices", please.

But the second sentence is the real problem; it's not complete.  It looks like it needs "is [something]" at the end (it's only performed when the ingress [...is what...]).

-- Section 2.2 --

  For that reason, in this
  specification, only switch ports MUST be used as binding anchors.

Having that particular sentence passive makes it very odd -- the meaning feels kind of twisted.  I suggest this instead: "For that reason, implementations of this specification MUST use switch ports as their binding anchors."  (The sentence right after it makes the word "only" unnecessary, so you don't have to figure out where to put it in the sentence.)

-- Section 3 --
Not a big deal, but as Section 2 uses 2119 key words, would you consider moving this to a new Section 1.1?

-- Section 4.1 --
The entity H isn't in the diagram, and doesn't appear in the text until.the next section.  Maybe say "the host" instead?  But, actually, I found t!e whole sentence odd.  Maybe this?: "...depending on whether the host moves to a different port on the same switch, or to a different switch."

[Ballot comment]
Just nits...

---

Abstract and Introduction

  The proposed mechanism is intended to complement ingress
  filtering techniques to provide a finer granularity on the control of
  the source addresses used.

"intended to"  Well, does it, or doesn't it?

"the source address used"  By whom?

---

Section 1

  SEND SAVI is designed to be deployed in SEND networks with a minimum
  set of changes.

That would be "none" :-)
And, changes to what?

I think you mean "...with as few changes to the deployed implementations
as possible."

---

Section 2.2

  Bindings are refreshed periodically by means of secured NUD_NSOL
  message issued by the SEND SAVI device, which had to be answered by a
  valid NUD_NADV message by the node for which the binding exists.

The message had to be answered or the device had to answered?
s/answered by a/answered with a/

---

There is a lot of passive voice in the document. It is not a big problem
and I think the text can be understood, but it would be way nicer to be
precise about where the responsibility lies. Random examples from Section
2.2...

  Validated RADV messages are used to associate router authorization to
  existing bindings

  Packets with off-link source addresses are only
  forwarded if they are received from a port associated to the IPv6
  address of a router.

---

The logic in 2.4 for untrusted routers is impeccable. What is missing
is an indication of what to do! If I want to deploy exactly as described
I think you are saying I cannot use the new features described in this
document, but can continue to deploy using 3971. An extra sentence would
be helpful.

---

Very many thanks for thinking about Section 5.4.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed [draft-ietf-savi-send-10, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (SEND-based Source-Address Validation Implementation) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Source Address Validation
Improvements WG (savi) to consider the following document:
- 'SEND-based Source-Address Validation Implementation'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-12-23. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This memo describes SEND SAVI, a mechanism to provide source address
  validation using the SEND protocol.  The proposed mechanism is
  intended to complement ingress filtering techniques to provide a
  finer granularity on the control of the source addresses used.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-savi-send/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-savi-send/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Proposed Standard is being requested.

Based on RFC 2026 and RFC 6410, this is the proper type of RFC.

This type of RFC is indicated in the title page header.


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents.
The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This memo describes SEND SAVI, a mechanism to provide source address
validation using the SEND protocol. The proposed mechanism is intended to
complement ingress filtering techniques to provide a finer granularity on
the control of the source addresses used.

Working Group Summary:

There is SAVI WG consensus behind the document.

Document Quality:

This document was thoroughly reviewed by Ana Kukec, Tony Cheneau, Greg
Daley and Jean-Michel Combes.

Personnel:

The Document Shepherd is Jean-Michel Combes (jeanmichel.combes at gmail.com),
as savi WG chair.

The Responsible Area Director is Ted Lemon (ted.lemon at nominum.com)

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the
IESG.

During his review, the Document Shepherd focused on these main points:

- Compliance with "Source Address Validation Improvement Framework"
document (draft-ietf-framework-06)

- Compliance with issues raised during the IESG review for "FCFS SAVI:
First-Come, First-Served Source Address Validation Improvement for Locally
Assigned IPv6 Addresses" (RFC 6620)

- Compliance with SEND specifications

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed?

The document Shepherd have no concerns about the depth or breadth of the
reviews that have been performed.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took
place.

As the csi WG is closed now, the document Shepherd thinks there is no more
place to request a review from SEND experts. So, the document Shepherd
thinks this document doesn't need review from a particular or from broader
perspective.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG
should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with
certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a
need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has
indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

The Document Shepperd has no specific concerns or issues with this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why?

Each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required
for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already
been filed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosure has been filed that references this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent
the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or
does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The WG consensus is strong behind this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email
messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate
email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

Nobody has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The Document Shepherd didn't find any ID nits in this document.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No formal review is required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?

All references within this document have been identified as either
normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There are no normative references that are not ready for advancement or are
otherwise in an unclear state.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last
Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the
document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is
discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG
considers it unnecessary.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing
RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the
initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has
been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document has no actions for IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

This document has no actions for IANA.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language,
such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

This document doesn't include sections written in a formal language.