Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-06

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:00:32 -0800

Reviewer: Daniel Migault
Review result: Has Nits

Hi, 

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
these comments just like any other last call comments.

The summary of the review is Ready with nits:

•	section 1: Introduction

   However, an RPKI relying party may want to override some of the
   information expressed via putative TAs and the certificates

<mglt>It seems that TA is being used for the first time here. The acronym
should be extended to ease the reading of the document. I am reading it 
as Trust Anchor.</mglt>

•	section 2.  RPKI RPs with SLURM

   SLURM provides a simple way to enable RPs to establish a local,

<mglt>It seems to me the acronym RP is used for the first time. It seems that 
it should be expanded to ease the reading of the document. I am reading it 
as Relaying Party.</mglt>

•	section 6 Security considerations

<mglt>I My reading is that the section catches the criticality of the SLURM 
files and that network operators are already familiar provisioning critical 
data. As such I believe the section is sufficiently clear.</mglt>

•	whole document:

<mglt>It seems that BGPSec, and BGPsec are used together. I believe this 
should be harmonized to BGPsec.</mglt>

Yours, 
Daniel

---

From: Di Ma <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 19:14:27 +0800

Daniel,

Thanks for your review.

Please see my responses in lines.

> 在 2018年2月20日，23:00，Daniel Migault <[email-masked]> 写道：
> 
> Reviewer: Daniel Migault
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> Hi, 
> 

Yes. We will use Trust Anchor for its first use. 

> as Relaying Party.</mglt>

Yes. We will use Relaying Party for its first use. 

> should be harmonized to BGPsec.</mglt>

We will use BGPsec throughout this document as used by RFC 8205. 

Di

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:28:17 +0000

Hi Di, 

This addresses my concerns thanks!
Yours, 
Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: Di Ma [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 6:14 AM
To: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Cc: secdir <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [sidr] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-06

Daniel,

Thanks for your review.

> <mglt>It seems that TA is being used for the first time here. The 
> acronym should be extended to ease the reading of the document. I am 
> reading it as Trust Anchor.</mglt>
> 

> <mglt>It seems to me the acronym RP is used for the first time. It 
> seems that it should be expanded to ease the reading of the document. 
> I am reading it as Relaying Party.</mglt>

> <mglt>I My reading is that the section catches the criticality of the 
> SLURM files and that network operators are already familiar 
> provisioning critical data. As such I believe the section is 
> sufficiently clear.</mglt>
> 
> •	whole document:
> 
> <mglt>It seems that BGPSec, and BGPsec are used together. I believe 
> this should be harmonized to BGPsec.</mglt>

Di