IETF Logo Mail Archive

[auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9324 <draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr-08> for your review

Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrheenen@amsl.com> Thu, 08 December 2022 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <rvanrheenen@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FA4C1522A3; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 11:12:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a3L3jsT5I2qh; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 11:12:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A848C1522A0; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 11:12:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539654243E44; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 11:12:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jWjj5H2dvsIq; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 11:12:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:641:300:5fb0:b97d:e678:336d:9339] (unknown [IPv6:2601:641:300:5fb0:b97d:e678:336d:9339]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 056484243EC3; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 11:12:26 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Rebecca VanRheenen <rvanrheenen@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2359r9gcn.wl-randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2022 11:12:24 -0800
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, sidrops-ads@ietf.org, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <99FF6A69-CF26-42AA-9F2D-AA77E859DC23@amsl.com>
References: <20221027190446.EBB7155D3E@rfcpa.amsl.com> <m2o7shbnkh.wl-randy@psg.com> <231AFC66-0957-4C1C-9F01-C7B6711E647D@amsl.com> <m2359r9gcn.wl-randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com>, pfsinoz@gmail.com, mark@tinka.africa, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/85z0jpaSkgjILGT5DKdFOs9v5yg>
Subject: [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9324 <draft-ietf-sidrops-rov-no-rr-08> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2022 19:12:32 -0000

Hi Randy and *AD,

Randy, thank you for the reply. We have updated the document. All of our questions have now been addressed. Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.

*Warren, as AD, please review and approve the added text in Section 2. This change is best viewed in this diff file: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324-auth48diff.html.

Updated XML file:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324.xml

Updated output files:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324.txt
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324.html

Diff file showing changes made during AUTH48:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324-auth48diff.html

Diff files showing all changes:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9324-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff)

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9324

Thank you,

RFC Editor/rv



> On Dec 7, 2022, at 11:14 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> 
> rebecca:
> 
>> What do you think about adding the following at the end of Section 2?
>> Or is another location in the document better? (Note that we will ask
>> the AD to approve added text.)
>> 
>>   Note that the term "RPKI-based Route Origin Validation" in
>>   this document means the same as the term "Prefix Origin Validation"
>>   used in [RFC6811].
> 
> fine
> 
>>>> 8) <!-- [rfced] Terminology
>>>> 
>>>> a) We note inconsistencies in the terms listed below. We chose the
>>>> form on the right. Please let us know any objections.
>>>> 
>>>> Route Server vs. route server Note: The lowercase form is used in
>>>> RFC 7947 and is more common in the RFC Series.
>>>> 
>>>> BGP Speaker vs. BGP speaker
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> b) We see instances of both "Route Refresh" (capitalized) and "route
>>>> refresh" (lowercase) in the document. Should the capitalization be
>>>> consistent? Please review and let us know if any updates are needed.
>>>> -->
> 
> you seem to favor lower case, so fine
> 
> randy
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email