[Sidrops] AD Review of: draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis - "A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)"

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Dear authors and WG,

Thank you for this document.

I only have a single comment — throughout, the document says things like:

S 4.3.2.2.  Element maxLength
"If present, the maxLength MUST be:

   *  an integer greater than or equal to the length of the accompanying
      prefix, and
   *  less than or equal to the maximum length (in bits) of an IP
      address in the applicable address family: 32 in case of IPv4 and
      128 in case of IPv6."

Oh, fine. But, what happens if the maxLength is **less** than length of the
prefix? Should implementations simply ignore this prefix? Should they view
the ROA as invalid? Should they call the police and report it? This is just
one example of this sort of concern, there are a bunch of similars ones
too.

I guess that the argument could be made that this document only specifies a
profile, and that it is the responsibility of other documents to handle
this (and other violations), but that feels like somewhat of a cop out…

W

P.S: I had a quick look at RFC6488, RFC9319, and a few others, and didn't
see that particular issue handled, so I don't really know if other
documents are addressing all of the errors….