[sidr] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: (with COMMENT)

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: 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-delta-protocol/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m not skilled in the art of RPKI, so perhaps I lack imagination, but
I'm not understanding why these two SHOULDs aren't MUSTs. I'm not asking
for a change, but if the document included explanations of why an
implementation might not do the SHOULDs, some readers might thank you.

     The RP SHOULD add all publish elements to a local storage and
      update its last processed serial number to the serial number of
      this delta file.

      The RP SHOULD NOT remove objects from its local storage solely
      because it encounters a "withdraw" element, because this would
      enable a publication server to withdraw any object without the
      signing Certificate Authority consent.  The RP could use
      additional strategies to determine if an object is still relevant
      for validation before removing it from its local storage.  In
      particular objects should not be removed if they are included in
a
      current validated manifest.