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

[Rebecca VanRheenen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

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? 

_______________

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 28, 2022, at 1:59 AM, Ben Maddison <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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