Re: [Sidrops] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-12: (with COMMENT)

["Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro,

You suggested:
> In particular, operators with short prefixes and many advertisements of both
> IPv4 and IPv6 may have a harder time keeping up with changes.  I would love to
> see some text around the challenges that applying the recommendations at scale
> may bring, which may also "result in a self-inflicted denial of service" (to
> use the description in §7).

The text that is already in the draft and addresses the challenges (exception cases where the maxlength recommendation need not be heeded) is as follows:

   In general, except in some special cases, operators SHOULD avoid
   using the maxLength attribute in their ROAs, since its inclusion will
   usually make the ROA non-minimal.

   One such exception may be when all more specific prefixes permitted
   by the maxLength are actually announced by the AS in the ROA.
   Another exception is where: (a) the maxLength is substantially larger
   compared to the specified prefix length in the ROA, and (b) a large
   number of more specific prefixes in that range are announced by the
   AS in the ROA. 

This recognizes both IPv4 and IPv6 cases when the operator may decide to use maxLength rather than enumerate a large number of sub-prefixes in the ROA. Let us know if you feel the above text is not adequate.

Ben and Alvaro:

Elsewhere in the doc, I feel that saying "Failure to do so could, in the worst case, result in a self-inflicted denial of service." is not helpful or necessary. It can be deleted. The operator can make many different kinds of mistakes (e.g., a single typo) with ROAs that can cause self-inflicted denial of service. 

Sriram