[sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 03:12 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148721476654.31580.4605680126089280302.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 19:12:46 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/h6RSaLQd390AQOMpR1MwR4sm_6o>
Cc: morrowc@ops-netman.net, sidr-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: 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-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis/



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

I share Mirja's questions about versioning, and whether this updates or
obsoletes 6810.

- 5, 2nd paragraph: Why is the SHOULD not a MUST? When might it make
sense not to ignore the contents of a reserved field?

- 5.1, 6th paragraph: I'm not sure I understand the use of the word
"commensurate" in this context.

- 9.2: Seems like a reference to RFC 7525 would be useful here.

[sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Ben Campbell