Re: [sidr] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib-04

[heasley <[e-mail]>]

Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 05:25:16PM +0100, Bert Wijnen (IETF):
> Not sure why you send this to authors/editors.
> 
> The document is in IETF Last Call.
> So comments need to to got to IETF or IESG list.
> 
> Your comments seem to be comments that get responded
> to a WG or IETF Last Call. Those comments need to
> go to WG and/or IESG or IETF list.
> 
> 
> On 12/4/12 5:15 PM, heasley wrote:
> > rpkiRtrCacheServerPreference doesnt indicate which is more preferred, 0 or
> > 255, but should imo.
> >
> Since it is an Unsigned 32, I think that this text:
> 
> 
>                      A lower value means more preferred. If two
>                      entries have the same preference, then the
>                      order is arbitrary.
> 
> Which is present in the DESCRIPTION clause clearly explains
> that 0 is more preferred than 255.

grumble; the mib import tool is truncating descriptions.  sorry for the noise.

> > shouldnt rpkiRtrCacheServerV4ActiveRecords et al be in an afi/safi table?
> > in theory, other afis may be supported.
> >
> not sure I can properly answer this one.
> possibly you'd like to see them there too?
> 
> But I don't think this is a fatal flaw is it?

you tell me; seems like afi/safi tables are common now and other rpki pairs
are possible.