Re: [Sidrops] AD Review of: draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis - "A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)"

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 03:40:00PM +0200, Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> Job Snijders wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 01:13:16PM +0200, Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> > > 
> > > I think it still needs to be specified in the validation section
> > > (because that section claims to exhaustively list all condition for
> > > a valid ROA) that if any of the requirements given in the Content
> > > Type section is not met, validation fails.
> > > 
> > > This is not obvious to someone with a background in IETF protocols,
> > > who would rather be inclined to salvage what’s usable.  
> > 
> > Did you mean the sentence should be at the bottom of the validation
> > section?
> 
> Not quite. I think there should be a separate bullet point a la
> 
> |  o  The ROA content fully conforms with all requirements laid out in
> |     section 4.

I see. I added another sentence:

    https://github.com/job/draft-rfc6482bis/commit/6f3073615c754fe7dab089e5e9b321ddb78bd19c

In summary: it's now been clarified that if any check fails - the entire
ROA is invalid; and that to establish whether ROA is valid or not, the
checks in section 3, section 4, the signed object template, and other
applicable RFCs must be implemented.

Kind regards,

Job