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

[Martin Hoffmann <[e-mail]>]

Job Snijders wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 10:10:22AM -0700, Warren Kumari wrote:
> > How about, at the end of "5.  ROA Validation", at the end of:
> > "Before a relying party can use a ROA to validate a routing
> > announcement, the relying party MUST first validate the ROA.  To
> > validate a ROA, the relying party MUST perform all the validation
> > checks specified in [RFC6488] as well as the following additional
> > ROA-specific validation steps." you add: "If any of these
> > constraints fail, the profile is deemed corrupt, and the entire ROA
> > should be discarded (probably after reporting an error)." or
> > similar.  
> 
> Thank you for the suggestion, how about the following?
> 
> https://github.com/job/draft-rfc6482bis/commit/25f14dd674625a4ac526dfcfef26f7345bd10cc1

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.

 -- Martin