Re: [Sidrops] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis-08: (with COMMENT)

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

Dear Roman,

Thanks for your review and comments

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 16:50, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis-08: 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/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-rfc6482bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ** Section 4.  Editorial.
>
> OLD
> A ROA is formally defined as
>
> NEW
> A ROA is formally defined in an ASN.1 module [X.680] as:



Actually, it’s the ROA’s ***eContent*** is formally defined in an ASN.1
module… I’ll fix that. Thanks!



** Section 4.3.3
>
>    In order to produce
>    and verify this canonical form, the process described in this section
>    SHOULD be used to ensure information elements are unique with respect
>    to one another and sorted in ascending order.
>
> Why are these canonicalization procedures not mandatory?  Shouldn’t
> s/SHOULD/MUST/?



A goal of this -bis document is to both be more prescriptive & precise, and
also be fully compatible with what’s actually deployed in the field.

At this point in time not all CAs issue products in the way that the
canonicalisation procedure describes. This means that Relying Parties can’t
yet enforce the canonical format when parsing.

Step 1 to introduce canonicalisation is to define the canonical format
(this -bis document does that); step 2 at some future point in time is to
propose to switch the SHOULD to a MUST (a future I-D should propose that,
after it’s authors have confirmed all then-deployed CAs adhere to the
canonical format).

Kind regards,

Job