Subject: [sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-20: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 17:11:12 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-20: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my discuss points. 

OLD COMMENTS below, I didn't edit 'em...

- section 2: I think this is a bit badly written: "The use
of BGPsec Router Certificates in no way affects RPKI RPs
that process Manifests and ROAs because the public key
found in the BGPsec Router Certificate is used only to
verify the signature on the BGPsec certificate request
(only CAs process these) and the signature on a BGPsec
Update Message [ID.sidr-bgpsec-protocol] (only BGPsec
routers process these)." Do you mean that there's no way
that an entity can confuse a Manifest, ROA, CSR or BGPsec
update so there's no issue with which public keys are used
to verify the signatures on those data structures?

- section 3: As noted in my comments on the BGPsec
protocol, it'd be better to call out the SKI here if you
don't add the direct ref to 6487 to the BGPsec protocol
draft.