[Sidrops] Éric Vyncke's Yes on draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-12: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-12: Yes

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen/



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

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-12
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is clear, detailed, with
several explanations.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education *especially* for one about the
use of IPv4-only RFC 1918).

Special thanks to Chris Morrow for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus, even if I would have appreciated the justification of the
intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Abstract

Comment to be ignored, it is only to signal that this is smart:
```
   ... context of destination-based Remotely Triggered
   Discard Route (RTDR) (elsewhere referred to as "Remotely Triggered
   Black Hole") ...
```
Only regret is that the acronym does not match the RTBH, which is so well
known. Again, this comment to be ignored.

### Section 1, freshness of the I-D

`measurements taken in June 2017`, it is 5 years ago. Is the situation still
identical ? or has there been some progress ?

### Section 1, reference to detailed explanations

As section 3 provides a description of the hijack attack, it would be nice to
put a forward internal reference to it in section 1 (after the external
reference).

### Use of IPv4-only RFC 1918

Rather than using RFC 1918 network prefixes instead of the documentation ones,
why not using the IPv6 documentation prefix ? After all, we are in 2022 ;-)
BTW, I will really appreciate a reply on this (was about to raise a DISCUSS to
ensure getting an explanation).

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments