Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08.txt

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <> Sat, 14 January 2017 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E3612A096 for <>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 08:51:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.72
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wc24lzXrJf5K for <>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 08:51:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA53712A093 for <>; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 08:51:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=15688; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1484412676; x=1485622276; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=sEOUw25Mz6Mplx6vqxFgZF/RQhOHJWtualL5w0t024k=; b=M+x6NC12yBa2A/foAxeHGIfydMun2xQjlAN3JZHI91nIxFgPmvk3++fH nDAWf5UEeMuMKdxHobW88XCo1opnz0ZopkPBh5PWQjei5X+5YPLlAfjAP NL2QZN7Ap6VO3zcc6o166yNYxY8RAkHa4BbD3jp0n9XLlbiTky4u5vvto M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,228,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="371852259"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Jan 2017 16:51:15 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v0EGpFAn008143 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:51:15 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:51:14 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:51:14 -0600
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <>
To: Rob Austein <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSaT99NUKiLuV0+0Cz5dcadcVtWaEuE+yAgAomZQA=
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:51:14 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1d.0.161209
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9982103DAF454784B36C266BC314641Eciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:51:19 -0000


Thanks for the update!  I’m starting the IETF Last Call.

I have two comments that result from not Obsoleting RFC6810:

1.       If this document is not Obsoleting RFC6810, then clarifying the title would avoid confusion from having 2 RFCs with the same name.  My suggestion is to change the title of this document to “The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol, Version 1”.

2.       The IANA Considerations section is not as prescriptive as it should be, for example: the document says that “Assuming that the registry allows range notation in the Protocol Version field…”, while the rpki-rtr-pdu registry [1] already has a version column (so it does already support version specific details).   For this document, IANA should only deal with Version 1 additions to the registry, so there’s no need to mention version 0 (except for the Type 9 PDU).  I think this should be easy to resolve, and IANA will probably point it our during the Last Call – so let’s wait for their comments and fix the text then.



On 1/7/17, 5:51 PM, "sidr on behalf of Rob Austein" <<> on behalf of<>> wrote:

With apologies to the WG and our AD for taking so ridiculously long
(deadlines on other projects, but that's no excuse), we have finally
uploaded an updated I-D which we hope deals with most (all?) of the
issues that came up during AD review, as well as a few minor
clarifications and wording tweaks.  No protocol changes, just (we
hope) better description of the protocol.

The one important change here in terms of IETF standardization is that
we've dropped the notion that this document should obsolete RFC 6810.
While Alvaro kindly offered to help us find a twisty path which would
let us write a single document which would both deprecate RFC 6810
(protocol version zero) and also specifying how to downgrade from
version one to version zero, on reflection the authors agreed that
this is not worth the procedural headache.

sidr mailing list<>