[Sidrops] Orie Steele's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-cms-signing-time-06: (with COMMENT)

[Orie Steele via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Orie Steele has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-cms-signing-time-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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-cms-signing-time/



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

# Orie Steele, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-sidrops-cms-signing-time-06
CC @OR13

https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sidrops-cms-signing-time-06.txt&submitcheck=True

## Comments

```
129        Publishers SHOULD ensure that the last modification timestamp of the
130        file remains unchanged as well.
```

Why not MUST? What happens if they do not?

```
156        In order to reduce the burden of the rsync synchronization (following
157        an RRDP failure), Publishers and RPs SHOULD adhere to the following
158        guidelines.
```

Why not MUST? Perhaps this sentence is not needed.

```
162        When serializing RPKI Signed Objects to a filesystem hierarchy for
163        publication via rsync, the mod-time of the file containing the Signed
164        Object SHOULD be set to the value of the CMS signing-time attribute
165        contained within the Signed Object.
```

Why not MUST? What happens if the mod-time is set to something else?
Does this guidance also apply to publishers that support RRDP in addition to
rsync?

```
169        When serializing RPKI Signed Objects retrieved via RRDP to a
170        filesystem hierarchy, the mod-time of the file containing the Signed
171        Object SHOULD be set to the value of the CMS signing-time attribute
172        contained within the Signed Object.
```

Why not MUST?

The amount of redundancy between this section and previous section, is
confusing. I would assume publishing and consuming would both need guidance on
CMS signing-time, regardless of if rsync or RRDP was used.