Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-04

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Di:

Hi!

Thanks for your prompt reply.  I look forward to an updated draft.

Alvaro.

On January 31, 2018 at 10:18:57 AM, Di Ma ([e-mail]) wrote:

Hi, Alvaro,

Thanks for your comments.

Please see my responses in lines.

> 在 2018年1月30日，02:21，Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> 写道：
>
> Dear authors:
>
> I just finished reading this document.
>
> I have some comments (below) that should be easy to address — please take
a look. I need you to address the References before I start the IETF Last
Call because of the DownRef to rfc6483.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
>
> Major:
>
> M1. Section 3.1: I'm not sure what the Normative result is form this
piece of text: "JSON members that are not defined here MUST not be used in
SLURM Files, however Relying Parties SHOULD ignore such unrecognized JSON
members at the top level, while any deviations from the specification at
lower levels MUST be considered an error." (s/MUST not/MUST NOT) If the not
defined members MUST NOT be used, when would the RPs not ignore (or even
better, treat as errors) them? IOW, why use SHOULD instead of MUST?
>

We authors think MUST is better than SHOULD.

And we would like to update section 3.1 saying:

"This document describes responses in the JSON [RFC7159] format. JSON
members that are not defined here MUST not be used in SLURM Files and
additional top-level members MUST be defined in RFCs that update this
document. Relying parties MUST ignore unrecognized JSON members at the top
level, while any deviations from the specification at lower levels MUST be
considered an error.”

Here is the consideration:
The current document describes local exceptions with regards to ROAs and
Router Certificates, which are significant to local control of routing. The
thought here was that we would leave an option for future other ’top-level’
elements to describe local exceptions with regards to other (future) RPKI
objects as long as they have fundamental effect in routing control , while
maintaining backward compatibility. But this is not explicit in the
document as written. The risk here, as written, is that implementations can
just add stuff at will for their own purpose and we can end up with the
same member name being re-used.


>
>
> M2. Section 4.2: "Before an RP configures SLURM files from different
source it MUST make sure there is no internal conflict among the INR
assertions in these SLURM files. To do so, the RP SHOULD check the entries
of SLURM file..." I think there's a Normative mismatch: "MUST make
sure...no...conflict" vs "SHOULD check the entries"; the SHOULD leaves the
door open to not always checking -- are there cases when the entries
wouldn't be checked *and* the MUST can still be guaranteed? It seems to me
like both keywords should be MUST.

Yes.

You are making sense here.

>
>
> M3. Section 6: "...but if the RP updates its SLURM file over the network,
it MUST verify the authenticity and integrity of the updated SLURM file."
Please indicate that the mechanism to update files, and the
authentication/integrity verification are outside the scope of this
document.

Agreed.

We are going to add:

"Yet the mechanism to update SLURM file to guarantee authentication and
integrity is out of the scope of this document. "

Besides, we need to change ‘source’ to ‘sources’ :-)

>
>
> M4. References:
>
> M4.1. s/I-D.ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview/rfc8205 ...and should be Normative.
>
> M4.2. I believe the following references should also be Normative:
ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis/rfc8210, rfc6483, rfc6810, rfc6811 and
rfc7159.
>
> M4.3. [minor] Please update the references according to the Nits [1].
>
> [1]
https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-04.txt
>
>

Agreed.

>
> Minor:
>
> P1. "Relying party software MAY modify other forms of output in
comparable ways, but that is outside the scope of this document." If it’s
out of scope, then there shouldn't be any Normative language. s/MAY/may

Agreed.

>
> P2. “Locally Added Assertions" are sometimes called "Locally Adding
Assertions".

We authors are going to change 4.1 and 4.2 to say “Locally Added
Assertions” because we refer to the elements.

The lower case “locally adding assertions” in 3.2 is fine, because it
describes an action.

>
> Nits:
>
> N1. s/control make use of RPKI data/control use of RPKI data

Agreed.

Di