[Sidrops] Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-crl-numbers-04: (with COMMENT)

[Deb Cooley <[e-mail]>]

Not necessary to repeat it.  I'm just not used to seeing actual
requirements in an Introduction section.  Thanks for pointing out those two
locations.

Deb

On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 11:30 AM Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Deb,
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 11:20:59AM -0400, Deb Cooley wrote:
> > What I don't see in the current draft is a statement that says basically
> > the CRL number will be ignored (regardless of whether it matches the
> > manifest number or not).  If that statement is in RFC9286, then a pointer
> > to that in the security considerations of this draft would provide
> clarity.
> >
> > And my first comment is that you need RFC9286 listed as a ref to security
> > considerations since that is where the requirement that the manifest
> number
> > is strictly increasing (or monotonically increasing).
>
> I am looking at
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-crl-numbers-05.html
>
> The last sentence of the Introduction is:
>
>         "This document mandates that RPKI RPs ignore the CRL Number
> extension."
>
> RFC9286 is listed as a normative reference.
>
> The introduction section points to the place that specifies manifest
> numbers strictly increase:
>
>         "Thus, in the RPKI, the ordering functionality provided by CRL
>         Numbers is fully subsumed by monotonically increasing Manifest
>         Numbers (Section 4.2.1 of [RFC9286]), thereby obviating the need
>         for RPKI RPs to process CRL Number extensions at all.
>
> Do you think it best to provide a some kind of repetition of this text
> and reference in the security considerations?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>