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

I think this is an improvement.

Russ

> On Jan 31, 2022, at 11:16 AM, Job Snijders <job=40fastly.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
>> Sidrops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> Sidrops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops