Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-19: (with COMMENT)

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 4, 2017, at 16:07, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-19: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A few strictly editorial comments:
> 
> - IDNits complains about some undefined references.

== Missing Reference: 'ID.sidr-rfc6485bis' is mentioned on line 334, but
     not defined

Yep that gets fixed when I change it to: RFC 7935

  ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 6485 (Obsoleted by RFC 7935)

I haven’t a clue where this reference is and why this warning is there.

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC6818' is mentioned on line 416, but not defined

And this also seems to be a fail on nroffedit.  It’s in the list but not populated in the informative references. 6818 is in the rfc-ref.txt from which the references are pulled.  grrr

<aside> Have I recently mentioned how much I sometimes %$#@#$ hate the tools we need to use to make these drafts. </aside>

I’m going to claim I failed here, beg forgiveness, and hope that we’ll let the RFC editor help us out later in the process.

> - Abstract: Why is the phrase "(to routers within an Autonomous System)"
> in parentheses?

sigh - no idea - parentheses removed

> -2: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol explicitly excludes non-capitalized
> versions of 2119 words. This draft does not. It seems different 2119
> approaches among the various bgpsec draft could be confusing to the
> reader.

Where’s that in draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol?

Regardless, I’m not sure that restoration will work in this draft because there are repeated MUST requirements from other RFC and my AD told me to not capitalize them :)

spt