Re: [sidr] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-06

Di Ma <madi@zdns.cn> Tue, 27 February 2018 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <madi@zdns.cn>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731F9126D85 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 04:03:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ky3I97HVEfQj for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 04:03:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpbg202.qq.com (smtpbg202.qq.com [184.105.206.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2A20126BF0 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 04:03:09 -0800 (PST)
X-QQ-mid: bizesmtp9t1519732985tpw4h95aw
Received: from [192.168.3.3] (unknown [117.100.128.114]) by esmtp4.qq.com (ESMTP) with id ; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 20:03:03 +0800 (CST)
X-QQ-SSF: 00400000004000F0FG40000A0000000
X-QQ-FEAT: PJL/FS1uSvIduVTEBzsqO4FUH5f/JUzoMD4lgcGSMOXPlgt/h9G8zKeO+xIm7 lX/Z9IA98rwXWWTun3KtD+V+FA4UtZdiIK9lNXI/GscVYnBrupli93RevgVM8Ci9ngHTYxn V3FmXKvTQVGnu9bZMVpoOLLMgWpKBzedHm2P64M1J+l6K2sC5jfTqETp2j1xQIp6yyvcYiV ZrIbDPBkUCzL0a8dBat5aU+F8ibmlvR9tGyhQLSIDuallixRbs4JMtF4WCS7XHEyzsbrBfs niY0oj8r0Y1zqclGOU3ZocAViFSgqRJudxm8Ypb8DG+kEJ
X-QQ-GoodBg: 2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Di Ma <madi@zdns.cn>
In-Reply-To: <50FD5EF7-509E-4A17-8321-3580EC206612@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 20:03:03 +0800
Cc: "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sidr-slurm@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9F4CB320-EB8D-4839-B9B2-5315405A0ECA@zdns.cn>
References: <50FD5EF7-509E-4A17-8321-3580EC206612@cisco.com>
To: IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
X-QQ-SENDSIZE: 520
Feedback-ID: bizesmtp:zdns.cn:qybgforeign:qybgforeign2
X-QQ-Bgrelay: 1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/JRIRhrbx4MSFdNqIhT9xHhbh3DE>
Subject: Re: [sidr] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-06
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 12:03:14 -0000

IJsbrand,

Thanks for your review.

Please see my responses in lines.


> 在 2018年2月27日,17:18,IJsbrand Wijnands <ice@cisco.com> 写道:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
> 
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-06 
> Reviewer: IJsbrand Wijnands 
> Review Date: 27-02-2018 
> Intended Status: Standards Track
> 
> Summary: 
> 
> • This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> This document reads ok.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> It seems to me it would be useful to have a "Terminology and Definitions” section where the various acronyms are defined. That would help readers who are less familiar in this area (like myself) to parse the document.

I understand your concern. 

However, the potential readers of this document are supposed to be familiar with the RPKI (RFC 6480) and BGPsec (RFC 8205) . All the acronyms use throughout this document are within the discourse system established by the RPKI and BGPsec. 

That is, only those who totally understand the RPKI and BGPsec would read this RFC for implementation and operations. 

Hoping I am making sense here :-) 

> 
> Nits:
> 
> 1. Introduction
> +++++++++++++++
> 
> * What is a "putative TAs”? Its not declared anywhere.

Yes. We will use Trust Anchor for its first use. 

> 
> * What is a “ROAs”? Should there be a RFC reference here?

ROA is explained as in ‘….the holder of a block of IP(v4 or v6) addresses can issue a Route Origination Authorization (ROA) [RFC6482]…’ in Introduction. 

> 
> 
> 2. RPKI RPs with SLURM
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> * What are “RPs”? Its not declared anywhere. 

Yes. We will use Relaying Party for its first use. 

> 
> 
> 3.3.  SLURM Target
> ++++++++++++++++++
> 
> * “A SLURM filer”, is that a filter or file?


Good catch. It should have been file :-)

Di