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

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Please note that the title of the document has been updated as
follows; abbreviations have been expanded per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322
("RFC Style Guide"). Please review.

Original:
  The Use of maxLength in the RPKI

Current:
  The Use of maxLength in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
-->


2) <!-- [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]. 
-->


3) <!-- [rfced] We have updated "[RFC1918] address space" as follows. Please let
us know any objections.

Original:
   Therefore, this
   document uses [RFC1918] address space for constructing example
   prefixes.

Updated:
   Therefore, this
   document uses the address space defined in [RFC1918] for constructing example
   prefixes.
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that [RFC6811] is the correct citation here. We
ask because we do not see the phrase "RPKI-based Prefix Validation",
though we do see one instance of "prefix validation" and a number of
instances of "RPKI".

Original:
   It is assumed that the reader understands BGP [RFC4271], RPKI
   [RFC6480], Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs) [RFC6482], RPKI-based
   Prefix Validation [RFC6811], and BGPsec [RFC8205].
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Please also confirm that [RFC7115] and [GCHSS] are correct
here. We believe that they are but would like to confirm since we do not
see the exact phrase "forged-origin sub-prefix hijack" in either
document, though [RFC7115] includes "forged origin attack" and [GCHSS]
includes "prefix hijacking".

Original:
   The forged-origin sub-prefix hijack [RFC7115] [GCHSS] is described
   here using a running example.
   ...
   ... are vulnerable to the following
   forged-origin sub-prefix hijack [RFC7115] [GCHSS]:
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] The following reference entries seem to point to the same
source. May we update the single instance of "[HARMFUL]" in the text to
read "[GSG17]" and delete the "[HARMFUL]" reference entry?

Original:
   [GSG17]    Gilad, Y., Sagga, O., and S. Goldberg, "Maxlength
              Considered Harmful to the RPKI", in ACM CoNEXT 2017,
              December 2017, <https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1015.pdf>.
   ...	      
   [HARMFUL]  Gilad, Y., Sagga, O., and S. Goldberg, "MaxLength
              Considered Harmful to the RPKI", 2017,
              <https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1015.pdf>.
-->


7) <!-- [rfced] Terminology

a) We see the following term used both with and without quotation
marks. Please review and let us know if the usage should be consistent.

"minimal ROA" vs. minimal ROA

Note that we will apply the decision for "minimal ROA" to instances of "loose
ROA". Currently all three instances of "loose ROA" are in quotation marks.


b) Please review instances of "maxLength" and let us know if any updates are
needed.  For example, should "the maxLength" in the following sentence read
"maxLength" (no "the") or "the maxLength attribute"?

Original:
   However, measurements of RPKI deployments have found that the use of
   the maxLength in ROAs tends to lead to security problems.


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 most of these
instances.

RPKI-based origin validation
RPKI origin validation
RPKI-based route origin validation (ROV)
RPKI-based route origin validation
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.

For example, please consider whether the following should be updated: 

black hole
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/st/rv



On Sep 26, 2022, at 10:30 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2022/09/26

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
     list:

    *  More info:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff file that will 
allow you to more easily view changes where text has been deleted or 
moved: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319-alt-diff.html

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9319.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9319

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9319 (draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-15)

Title            : The Use of maxLength in the RPKI
Author(s)        : Y. Gilad, S. Goldberg, K. Sriram, J. Snijders, B. Maddison
WG Chair(s)      : Keyur Patel, Chris Morrow

Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Robert Wilton