Hi, Please find my review, as member of the INT Area Directorate, of the following document: *** GENERAL COMMENT(S)/QUESTION(S) *** o RPSL Warning: I am not a RPSL expert *** DEEP REVIEW *** Network Working Group R. Bush Internet-Draft IIJ & Arrcus Intended status: Standards Track M. Candela IMHO, the Intended status of this document should not be “Standard Track” but “Experimental”. Indeed: (1) RFC8805 status is Informational (2) Many solutions are proposed for a single problem (i.e., remarks: attribute v.s. geofeed: attribute) (2) Authors of this document “leave global agreement of RPSL modification to the relevant parties” (sic) (3) This document doesn’t update officially RFC2622/RFC4012 (4) There is at least an experimentation (i.e., geofeed-finder) Finding and Using Geofeed Data draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-08 Abstract This document describes how to find and authenticate geofeed data. This abstract is too short for me ... Potential new text (don’t hesitate to modify it): A network operator can publish a mapping of IP address prefixes to simplified geolocation information, colloquially termed a "geolocation feed" or “geofeed”. This document describes solutions to add geofeed data inside RPSL based database. This document also describes a solution, based on RPKI, to authenticate geofeed data. 1. Introduction This document specifies how to augment the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) [RFC4012] inetnum: class to refer s/[RFC4012]/[RFC2622] BTW, have you an IETF reference regarding the inetnum: class? Because, the term “inetnum” is neither inside RFC2622 nor RFC4012. specifically to geofeed data CSV files, and how to prudently use them. In all places inetnum: is used, inet6num: should also be assumed [RFC4012]. 3. inetnum: Class Ideally, RPSL would be augmented to define a new RPSL geofeed: attribute in the inetnum: class. Until such time, this document defines the syntax of a Geofeed remarks: attribute which contains an HTTPS URL of a geofeed file. The format of the inetnum: geofeed attribute MUST be as in this example, "remarks: Geofeed ", where the token "Geofeed" is case sensitive, followed by a URL which will vary, s/the token "Geofeed" is case sensitive/ the token "Geofeed" MUST be case sensitive s/followed by a URL/and MUST be followed by a URL but MUST refer only to a single [RFC8805] geofeed file. inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed.csv While we leave global agreement of RPSL modification to the relevant parties, we specify that a proper geofeed: attribute in the inetnum: class be simply "geofeed: " followed by a URL which will vary, but s/be simply "geofeed: "/MUST be simply "geofeed: " s/followed by a URL/and MUST be followed by a URL MUST refer only to a [RFC8805] geofeed file. inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example geofeed: https://example.com/geofeed.csv Until all producers of inetnum:s, i.e. the RIRs, state that they have migrated to supporting a geofeed: attribute, consumers looking at inetnum:s to find geofeed URLs MUST be able to consume both the remarks: and geofeed: forms. This not only implies that the RIRs support the geofeed: attribute, but that all registrants have migrated any inetnum:s from remarks: use to geofeed:s. IMHO, the MUST should not be associated to service users but to the RIRs. Potential new text (don’t hesitate to modify it): Until all registrants, for a specific RIR, have migrated any inetnum: from remarks: use to geofeed: use, this RIR MUST support both the remarks: and geofeed: forms. Moving this paragraph inside Operationnal Considerations section? Currently, the registry data published by ARIN is not the same RPSL as the other registries; therefore, when fetching from ARIN via FTP Maybe add RFC7485 as reference? "NetRange" attribute/key MUST be treated as "inetnum" and the "Comment" attribute MUST be treated as "remarks". 5. Operational Considerations The geofeed files SHOULD be published over and fetched using https [RFC8446]. s/[RFC8446]/[RFC2818] Thanks in advance for your replies. Best regards, JMC.