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

[Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>]

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. 


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.


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

Original:
   As a result, RPKI-based route origin validation [RFC6811] is a poor
   fit for the validation of RTDR routes.
   …
   Considerations related to ROAs and origin validation [RFC6811] for
   the case of destination-based Remotely Triggered Discard Route (RTDR)
   (elsewhere referred to as "Remotely Triggered Black Hole") filtering
   are addressed here. 

Current:
   As a result, ROV [RFC6811] is a poor fit for the validation of RTDR
   routes.  
   …
   Considerations related to ROAs and ROV [RFC6811] for the case of
   destination-based RTDR (elsewhere referred to as "Remotely Triggered
   Black Hole") filtering are addressed here.

Perhaps:
   As a result, RPKI-based ROV [RFC6811] is a poor fit for the validation of RTDR
   routes.  
   …
   Considerations related to ROAs and RPKI-based ROV [RFC6811] for the case of
   destination-based RTDR (elsewhere referred to as "Remotely Triggered
   Black Hole") filtering are addressed here.

_______________


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)

Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. 

Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC.

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.

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9319

Thank you,

RFC Editor/rv



> On Sep 27, 2022, at 6:47 AM, Ben Maddison <benm=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear editor team,
> 
> Thanks for your review.
> Please find attached XML reflecting changes since the version provided
> at https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319.xml.
> 
> I have left the comments in the file for ease of reference, and
> annotated them (marked [BM]) with explanations where necessary.
> 
> I have made the changes necessitated by the points from your review:
> there should be no further edits required from your side.
> 
> Please let me know if there is any further that I can assist with.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ben
> <rfc9319.auth48.xml>