[sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: (with COMMENT)
"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 13 December 2016 11:54 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 376F81295DF; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 03:54:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.39.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148163006122.29374.7201338314702333753.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 03:54:21 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/OmmT0JvrJB9pVkqVK5b3XI_Wp2o>
Cc: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs@ietf.org, sidr-chairs@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org, sandy@tislabs.com
Subject: [sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 13 Dec 2016 11:54:21 -0000
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: 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-algs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - As Randy commented, if the goal is to smallerise the packets, it'd have been nice to use eddsa here but I assume that wasn't practical due to the timing and the number of RPKI elements that'd need to be defined for that? Is that right? Did the WG consider using 25519 instead of p256? If not, is it worth asking, just in case everyone loves the idea more than this? - Documents like this are better with test vectors included or referenced. Couldn't you add those or some pointers to those? - To answer Mirja's point: Anyone who knows RFC6090 knows that it more or less only exists because of IPR silliness. And sadly, even though 6090 only references documents that predate relevant IPR filings by >20 years, even 6090 still got an (IMO also silly) IPR declaration. [1] Sheesh, but whaddya gonna do? :-( Anyway, I don't think there's a need to, or benefit from, adding text here about the well-known situation with ECC IPR that I believe stymied deployment for at least a decade. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?rfc=6090&submit=rfc
- [sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ie… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… Sean Turner
- Re: [sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draf… Stephen Farrell