[Sidrops] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation-02: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 28 August 2018 13:30 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation@ietf.org, Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153546301179.23822.10226950999996945537.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 06:30:11 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/RO92R7cn6B7XOgUFlDJMPBW0BfM>
Subject: [Sidrops] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation-02: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation-02: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am happy that this document exists.  Documenting how the RIPE validator works
is important and valuable.  I think that the content (maybe after getting
feedback from the WG) would have been more appropriate as an Independent
Submission...or even as simply documentation in the RIPE site.

There is one point that bothers me -- as part of the answer to 'why are we
publishing this document?' (paraphrasing from the GenArt review), one of the
authors mentioned that "the implementation will change (in fact v3 is just
(about to be) released), and then the RFC is outdated." [1]  There is
documentation about the rpki-validator-3 in the github repository [2] already
-- I haven't taken the time to examine the differences, but the point about the
short term value of this document makes me think about the value of publishing
it as an RFC at all.

I have also noticed the comments from the WG about the value of this document
to implementors, both experienced and new.  I am then balloting 'No Objection'.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pJzebXqz1mtdGAsFi2V3e-G_SYI
[2] https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/rpki-validator-3/wiki

[Sidrops] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-i… Alvaro Retana