Subject: [sidr] WGLC on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-01

From: "Murphy, Sandra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:58:31 +0000

The authors believe that the draft is ready for publication.  This announces a two week last call.  The WGLC will end 31 Aug 2012.

Please report to the list whether you support publication of this draft or not.

The draft is available at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-01

The abstract says:

   This document provides an implementation report for RPKI Router
   protocol as defined in [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr].  The editor did not
   verify the accuracy of the information provided by respondents or by
   any alternative means.  The respondents are experts with the
   implementations they reported on, and their responses are considered
   authoritative for the implementations for which their responses
   represent.  Respondents were asked to only use the YES answer if the
   feature had at least been tested in the lab.

--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:28:58 -0400

>   feature had at least been tested in the lab.

Yes, support.

Nits:
I found the sentence "The editor did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by respondents or by any alternative means." unwieldy -- it makes it sound like "by respondents" is a means to verify accuracy ("The editor did not verify the accuracy of the information provided by reading entrails or by any alternative means."). I'd suggest just dropping "or by any alternative means"...

W

> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
> 

--
Curse the dark, or light a match. You decide, it's your dark.
                -- Valdis Kletnieks

---

From: David Mandelberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:21:51 -0400

In section 8:

   Does RPKI Router protocol implementation support Session ID
   procedures outlined in Section 5.10 of [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr]?

I think that should be a reference to section 5.1, not 5.10.

---

From: "John G. Scudder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:13:32 -0400

Looks good to me, except should it really be targeted for Standards Track? Informational seems to make more sense.

--John