Re: [Sidrops] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-09: (with COMMENT)

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

Dear Éric,

I think you raise a "valid" concern (no pun intended ;-))

I think something along the following lines might help clarify the
purpose of RPKI Manifests.

OLD:
    Specifically, if an RP checks a manifest's contents against the
    signed objects retrieved from a repository publication point, then
    the RP can detect "stale" (valid) data and deletion of signed objects.

NEW:
    Specifically, if an RP checks a manifest's contents against the
    signed objects retrieved from a repository publication point, then
    the RP can detect replay attacks, in-flight modification, or
    unauthorized deletion of signed objects.

What do others think?

Kind regards,

Job

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 02:59:31AM -0800, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-09: 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/blog/handling-iesg-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-6486bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
> 
> Please find below one non-blocking COMMENT points.
> 
> Special thanks to Chris Morrow for the shepherd's write-up including the
> section about the WG consensus (even if I would have appreciated a
> justification for the PS status).
> 
> I hope that this helps to improve the document,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> -- Abstract --
> In "then the RP can detect "stale" (valid) data", is "valid" really the right
> word to use ? I would naively expect "invalid". Or is it just an indication
> that the data *was* valid and is stale? The use of "(.*)" in the abstract was
> more to explain the previous word and this use is different and could confuse
> the reader.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops