[Sidrops] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rp-06: (with COMMENT)

Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 08 April 2020 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietf.org
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCEFA3A0893; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 06:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-sidrops-rp@ietf.org, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org, Nathalie Trenaman <nathalie@ripe.net>, nathalie@ripe.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.124.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <158635214730.7934.5595563917251501429@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 06:22:27 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/OgKAwPw6Wj-1UCs-MO7msOmXLKw>
Subject: [Sidrops] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rp-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 13:22:28 -0000

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-rp-06: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thanks for this - I think that this document is useful.  One issue with the
IETF standard format is that it can be difficult to find which RFCs need to be
read to fully solve a particular problem, particularly considering that some of
those RFCs may be updated or obsoleted by other RFCs.  I agree with Warren's
comment that it would make a good living document, if IETF had such things.

In terms of reading the document, I noted that it uses quite a lot of acronyms
that I was not immediately familiar with and that are not defined in the
document.  Perhaps the document could be improved by having a short terminology
section?  The acronyms that didn't appear to be defined include CRL, INR, CA,

4.2.1.  Manifest

   To determine whether a manifest is valid, the RP is required to
   perform manifest-specific checks in addition to those specified in

I found the above paragraph as being unclear, in that I don't know what "those"
is referring to, and hence I suggest more clearly identifying “those” checks.

Finally, I agree with Alvaro's comment related to section 4.3:  This document
probably shouldn't be giving recommendations.  Perhaps better to just keep this
as "However, most RP software ignores such objects.", or combine it with the
previous sentence.