Re: [auth48] [AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9319 <draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-15> for

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 4:36 PM, Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Ben and *AD,
>
> Ben, thank you for the clarification and for your patience as we figured
> this out. Per your reply, we do not believe any further changes are needed.
>
> Warren, as *AD, please review and approve the added text at the end of
> Section 1 (we consider added text to be above editorial). This added text
> is best viewed in one of the following diff files:
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319-auth48diff.html (shows all
> changes made in AUTH48) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/
> rfc9319-alt-diff.html (shows all changes).
>


LGTM / Approved.
Thank you,
W



> Thank you,
> RFC Editor/rv
>
> On Oct 3, 2022, at 11:57 AM, Ben Maddison <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Rebecca,
>
> ROV == Route Origin Validation, so in full you would have "RPKI-based
> ROV". However, the "RPKI-based" bit is clear from the context of the
> document, so I believe either/both are fine.
>
> Hope that clarifies?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben
> From: Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]> Sent: Monday, October 3,
> 2022 8:15:50 PM
> To: Ben Maddison <[e-mail]>; Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; Job Snijders
> <[e-mail]> Cc: RFC Editor <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>; Chris Morrow <[e-mail]>; Warren
> Kumari <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9319
> <draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-15> for
>
> Hi Sriram and Ben,
>
> Ben, we have noted your approval on the AUTH48 status page for this
> document (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9319).
>
> We also made the update in the Introduction as suggested by Sriram. One
> further question: does ROV stand for "RPKI-based Route Origin Validation”
> or simply "Route Origin Validation”? We’d like to clarify so that this
> document will be consistent and so that we can accurately update our
> abbreviations list (the acronym ROV has not yet been used in the RFC
> Series). We see instances of both "RPKI-based ROV” and “ROV” in the
> document. Are any further updates needed for consistency?
>
> This should be our last question; thank you for your patience!
>
> _______________
>
> Updated XML file:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319.xml
>
> Updated output files:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319.txt
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319.pdf
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319.html
>
> Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319-auth48diff.html
>
> Diff files showing all changes:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319-diff.html https://www.
> rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side diff) https://
> www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319-alt-diff.html (shows changes where
> text was moved/deleted)
>
> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: https://www.
> rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9319
>
> Thank you,
>
> RFC Editor/rv
>
> On Sep 29, 2022, at 11:23 PM, Ben Maddison <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Sriram, Rebecca,
>
> On 09/30, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote:
>
> We have updated the document. We would like to check with you on one more
> thing. RFC 6811 is frequently cited for "RPKI-based Route Origin Validation
> (ROV)” and “ROV” in this document; however, RFC 6811 doesn’t include the
> acronym ROV, though it does discuss “Origin Validation”. Will this cause
> any problems for readers?
>
> [..]
>
> Just so we are on the same page: I have replaced RPKI-based ROV in the
> first paragraph with ROV. The abstract includes 'RPKI-based Route Origin
> Validation (ROV)' and the first use of ROV in the Introduction is the
> paragraph cited above (Considerations....).
>
> I have no problem with this change.
>
> Subject to the above final edit, I approve for RFC publication.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben
>
>