[RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-05

Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 18 April 2019 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F35F12040A; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: sidrops@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.95.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <155562409732.25526.1571500373372550686@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:48:17 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/X8j8QCvM863bOWD3qmryD9q7ZyA>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-05
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 21:48:18 -0000

Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Has Nits

This is a well written document.

There are a couple of nits that need addressing but otherwise it is ready to publish.


6.  Security Considerations

   Though the above use cases are all constrained to local contexts,
   they violate the model of a single global PKI, albeit to meet real
   operational needs.  Hence they MUST be implemented to assure the
   local constraint.

SB> I can see why RFC2119 language is used, and it seems correct to use it,
however Nits is complaining that there is no RFC2119 boilerplate.


              Lepinski, M. and S. Turner, "An Overview of BGPSEC",
              draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview-02 (work in progress), May

SB> Nits asks if you mean this version or -08?