[sidr] Terry Manderson's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-14: (with COMMENT)

["Terry Manderson" <[e-mail]>]

Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-14: 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-ops/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for creating a document to begin to pen the upcoming gotchas of
BGPsec.

I have a couple small comments.

Section 3. "All non-ROA considerations in the section on RPKI
Distribution and Maintenance of [RFC7115] apply."

Apart from the sentence being stylistically terse (which I don't really
care about), If you follow this as a reading list and hit section 3 of
RFC7115 it leaves the reader wondering what considerations apply exactly.
May I suggest:

" The considerations for RPKI objects (Certificates, Certificate
Revocation Lists (CRLs), manifests, Ghostbusters Records [RFC6481]),
Trust Anchor Locators (TALs) [RFC6490], cache behaviours of
synchronisation and validation from the section on RPKI Distribution and
Maintenance of [RFC7115] apply. Specific considerations relating to ROA
objects do not apply to this document" 

Forward apologies if that sounds pedantic. 

This is surely early days of BGPsec adoption and use. I have personal
opinions about how adoption will go and what will be learnt or discovered
along the way. So I do share Stephen's observation about painting one's
self into a corner.