[sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: (with COMMENT)

"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 16 February 2017 13:48 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148725290471.15905.9914176554016381260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 05:48:24 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/uCYKpI22YN8ttvs19-36flSoG7M>
Cc: draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol@ietf.org, sidr-chairs@ietf.org, morrowc@ops-netman.net, sidr@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: 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-delta-protocol/



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

3.5.1.3: hard-coding a hash algorithm again? Why is that a good
idea? sha256 is the right hash to choose today, but having to
rev the rrdp version to move to some other hash alg seems like
a bad plan. I suggest you either add a "hashalg" attribute to
the xml or else use a ni schemed URI for the value of the uri
attribute (or something along those lines).
Same thing in 3.5.3.3.

[sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ie… Stephen Farrell