[Last-Call] draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-ta-tiebreaker-04 ietf last call Genart review

[Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-ta-tiebreaker
Title: Tiebreaking Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchors
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-ta-tiebreaker-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2026-05-22
IETF LC End Date: 2026-06-01
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

The document is well written, and easy to read. However, I have both Technical
and Editorial issues that I'd like the authors to address.

Major issues:

Q_MA_1: Is it explained why a shorter validity period is preferred in the
tiebreaking scheme? The Introduction does talk about "unreasonably long
validity periods", but that is not a generic explanation. I think this should
be explained, both in the Introduction and in the the normative text in Section
2.

Q_MA_2: The Introduction says that the 'more recently' issued TA certificate is
preferred. But, Section 2 talks about using the "more recent notBefore". Those
are 2 different things.

Minor issues:

N/A

Nits/editorial comments:

Q_ED_1: The document talks about "objects" and "certificates". What is the
difference? Unless there is a reason for using both, please be consistent.

Q_ED_2: The document talks about "locally cached copy" and "cached copy".
Please be consistent.

Q_ED_3: The document talks about "retrieved object" and "retrieved TA". Unless
there is a reason for using both, please be consistent.