Re: [Sidrops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis-05.txt

Hi Job, all,

Thank you for adding the canonicalisation. This addresses the concern I raised a while ago (I could not respond earlier because I was enjoying a holiday!).

My remaining question to RP implementers is whether it's clear from this draft that even though CAs SHOULD use the canonical ordering, RPs SHOULD NOT (yet) reject objects that don't. This is implicit in the document because it is not named in section 5 but could be said explicitly.

I suggested a RECOMMENDED earlier, but as long as RPs do not reject, I agree that a SHOULD is more appropriate and facilitates a path where a future update can change this to "MUST" (for CAs wrt ordering and RPs wrt validation).

Tim

> On 3 Aug 2023, at 14:14, Job Snijders <job=40fastly.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 09:45:19AM +0200, Ben Maddison wrote:
>>> Thanks for the update to the document. This incorporates the outcome
>>> from some discussions in San Francisco in real life.
>>> 
>>> I think that the partial orderings used belong in the main text of
>>> the document.
>> 
>> I tend to agree, but do not have a strong preference. Do others
>> disagree?
> 
> The document indeed is seems more readable by incorporating the
> canonicalization procedure in the ipAddrBlocks section.  This way we
> also get rid of two SHOULDs in what formerly was section 4.3.3,
> simplifying the document structure. Good suggestion, Ties.
> 
> I've uploaded -06 to reflect these changes.
> 
> diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis-06
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> Sidrops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops