[Sidrops] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-02: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-ov-egress-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-ov-egress/



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

I'm not a BGP expert, but this document seems sensible to me.

Some comments:

1) In the first sentence of the introduction: Is it really correct that the
"This document does not change semantics of [RFC6811] RPKI-based origin
validation"?  Given that the 4th paragraph in the introduction then states that
"This document clarifies ..."

2) I wasn't entirely sure that section 2 (Suggested Reading) is required at
all, given that this is effectively what section 8.1 and 8.2 is listing anyway,
but equally I'm okay if the section is left in.

3) The security section is terse, and I agree that this doesn't introduce any
new security issues.  But I was wondering if the purpose of this clarification
is to improve security with more reliable filtering, and if so, would it be
helpful to have a sentence in the security section that states that?

One nit:

1) In the first sentence of the introduction "of [RFC6811] of RPKI-based origin
validation" -> "of [RFC6811] RPKI-based origin validation"?