Re: [Last-Call] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-06

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 20 November 2023 17:43 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0F1C1516E9; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:43:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id joK-ZrL86BP4; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44DC7C15152C; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 09:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19DBD17CD3C; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:43:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [96.241.2.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 03D4817CED0; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:43:26 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <170048020435.52580.12165403243448768390@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:43:15 -0500
Cc: int-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AA0B2969-C91E-4315-8D14-FAB94E55FF5D@vigilsec.com>
References: <170048020435.52580.12165403243448768390@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6)
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.11 on 66.39.134.11
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/HaqViYN0IFs46Qhf1v05jVIlW-Q>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-06
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 17:43:32 -0000

RFC 9092 includes a normative reference to RFC 8805.The shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds (which eventually became RFC 8805) calls out this downref.

The downward references were referenced in the Last Call:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds

At this point, RFC 5485 and RFC 8805 should have been added to the downref registry; however I do not see either of them here https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref

I hope the OPS AD can correct this now.

Russ


> On Nov 20, 2023, at 6:36 AM, Sheng Jiang via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the IntArea directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. Comments that
> are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG
> review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like
> any other last call comments.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-06
> Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
> Review Date: 2023-11-20
> Result: Ready with Nits
> 
> This Standards Track document specifies how to augment the 
> Routing Policy Specification Language inetnum: class to 
> refer specifically to geofeed data files and describes an 
> optional scheme that uses the Resource Public Key 
> Infrastructure to authenticate the geofeed datafiles. It intends
> to obsolete RFC 9092. It is well written and almost ready with 
> several Nits regarding to references, see beloww.
> 
> Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2818 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110)
> Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6486 (Obsoleted by RFC 9286)
> Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8805