Reviewer: Linda Dunbar Review result: Has Issues General Comments: The document could benefit from more concise wording. Some sections are overly verbose and could be streamlined without losing critical information. The document effectively describes two existing methods for Source Address Validation (SAV): Access Control Lists (ACLs) and Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF). It highlights that ACLs have a high operational cost due to the need for manual updates and maintenance in dynamic networks. uRPF, while automated, struggles with asymmetric routing scenarios, leading to improper blocking of legitimate traffic. These limitations are well known, and the document does not provide sufficient new insights into overcoming them. Section 5 (Requirements for New SAV Mechanisms): The requirements listed in this section reflect desirable outcomes for any SAV mechanism, such as automatic updates, accurate validation, and support for incremental deployment. The previous efforts likely shared similar goals but may have been deemed too complex or expensive to implement at scale. A more valuable approach would be to discuss the technical challenges or trade-offs involved in meeting these requirements and propose specific frameworks to address them. The document would benefit from an exploration of why these challenges remain unresolved and how new methods could overcome them. Best Regards, Linda Dunbar -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
