[sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: (with COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

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