[Sidrops] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rp-06: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 09 April 2020 02:00 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 8FD1E3A1D71; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 19:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-sidrops-rp@ietf.org, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org, Nathalie Trenaman <nathalie@ripe.net>, nathalie@ripe.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.125.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <158639761310.14576.3625316672934417222@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 19:00:13 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/xe2wRWfn11F4aKLWGRqUdGFRgJo>
Subject: [Sidrops] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rp-06: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 02:00:14 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-rp-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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


** In the spirit of this being a pathfinding document, provide additional
references as follows:

-- Section 3.2.  Per “An RP is expected to support the amended procedure to
handle with accidental over-claim.”, a pointer to these procedures would be

-- Section 3.3.  Per “CRLs in the RPKI are tightly constrained; only the
AuthorityKeyIndetifier and CRLNumber extensions are allowed …”, a pointer to
these extensions would be helpful.

-- Section 4.2.4, Per “Additionally, the certificate must contain an AS
Identifier Delegation extension …”, a pointer to this extension would be

** Section 1.  Per “Besides, software engineering calls for how to segment the
RP system into components with orthogonal functionalities, so that those
components could be distributed across the operational timeline of the user”. I
didn’t follow the intent of this sentence.  What are principles of software
engineering calling for?

** Section 3.3.  Typo in the extension name. 

** Section 7. Please add text that this document doesn’t introduce any new
security considerations but is a resource to implementers.  The individual RPKI
RFC need to be consulted for specific guidance.

** Editorial Nits
-- Section 1.  Typo. s/This document will be update …/This document will be
updated …/

-- Section 3.1.  Typo. s/must be present and value of each extension/must be
present and the value of each extension/