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

[Ben Maddison <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rebecca,

Thanks for the quick turn around!

On 09/27, Rebecca VanRheenen wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> Thank you for the updated XML file. We have posted updated output and
> diff files (see links below). We also have a few followup
> comments/questions:
> 
> 1) 
> 
> > <!-- [rfced] Will readers know what is meant by "the RPKI specification" in                                 
> > these sentences?  Would adding a citation (perhaps to [RFC6480]) be                                         
> > helpful?                                                                                                    
> >                                                                                                             
> > Original:                                                                                                   
> >    Best current practices described in this document require no changes                                     
> >    to the RPKI specification and will not increase the number of signed                                     
> >    ROAs in the RPKI because ROAs already support lists of IP prefixes                                       
> >    [RFC6482].                                                                                               
> >    ...                                                                                                      
> >    This practice requires no changes to the RPKI specification and need                                     
> >    not increase the number of signed ROAs in the RPKI because ROAs                                          
> >    already support lists of IP prefixes [RFC6482].                                                          
> >                                                                                                             
> > [BM]:                                                                                                       
> >   Updated to "specifications" (plural).                                                                     
> >   These specifications are spread over a considerable number of documents.                                  
> >   I don't think that attempting to reference all of them is helpful.                                        
> >   Similarly I think adding a reference to only RFC6480 may mis-lead the                                     
> >   reader to beleive that this is the only one that is relevant.                                             
> > -->
> 
> FYI - We also updated to "specifications" (plural) in the second sentence above. 

Thanks, I missed that.

> 2) 
> 
> > c) Please review the following forms and let us know if any updates are needed
> > for consistency. Note that RFC 6811 is used as a citation for many of these
> > instances.
> > 
> > RPKI-based origin validation
> > RPKI origin validation
> > RPKI-based route origin validation (ROV)
> > RPKI-based route origin validation
> > 
> > [BM]:
> >   RPKI-based Route Origin Validation (or ROV) is the correct term. I have
> >   changed thoughout.
> 
> Would you like to use "RPKI-based Route Origin Validation (ROV)” for
> the first instance in text and then use the shortened form "RPKI-based
> ROV” thereafter? Or do you prefer the current arrangement? We note
> that RFC 6811 is used as a citation for many of these and does not use
> the acronym ROV, so that may be a factor in your decision here.

I went the route of expanding on first use, but on a per-section basis,
in order that sections could easily be read in isolation without
back-tracking.

However, on reflection, I think the acronym ROV is in wide enough use by
the target audience that this is unnecessary. Please would you update to
use just "ROV" after the first occurrence?

> 3) Should “ROV” in the current text below read "RPKI-based ROV”? Or is the current okay as is?
[...]

Just "ROV" is fine. The acronym is widely used and well understood.
Additionally, there is no such thing as "non-RPKI-based ROV" (or at
least, nobody calls it that).

Cheers,

Ben