[Sidrops] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-05: (with DISCUSS)
Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 12 April 2022 13:35 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 AD2CB3A1F83; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 06:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity@ietf.org, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org, morrowc@ops-netman.net, morrowc@ops-netman.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.46.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <164977055162.22301.7193991847737146257@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 06:35:51 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/eJRMmife5bX3iQu8__W8DFn_EF8>
Subject: [Sidrops] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-05: (with DISCUSS)
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:35:52 -0000
Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-05: Discuss 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-rpki-has-no-identity/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work on this document. Many thanks to Tim Bray for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/SKUKjoE9bPh62XsVezoD5mPAkz4/, and to the authors for addressing Tim's comments. I have one question for consideration (which will not require any textual changes to the document): is "Standard Track" the proper track of RFC for this document? I am happy to be told by the authors, working group or responsible AD that yes - this has been discussed and the consensus was that "Standard Track" is the most appropriate track for this document. Normally I would look for such information in the shepherd write-up, but unfortunately I can't find my answer there, nor through my superficial archive search. Note I am not questioning the need for this document, which I understand has been discussed and has consensus, barely its track - doesn't this fit better as Informational, or even BCP (although I concur with Murray, BCP does not seem appropriate)? Francesca
- [Sidrops] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-… Francesca Palombini via Datatracker