Subject: [sidr] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:01:47 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup/

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

High level comment:
I'm not sure if 'protocol' is the right term for this spec. For me this
doc rather defines a set of messages, however given it does  not specify
any action that must follow as a reaction to a message (as well as no
choice of the publication nor BPKI protocol), I find the term 'protocol'
here rather confusing.

Smaller comments:
- Some more abbreviations could be spelled out, e.g. CMS
- section 2 is not needed
- sec 5: "Appendix A is a [RelaxNG] schema for this protocol.  The schema
is
   normative: in the event of a disagreement between the schema and the
   following textual description, the schema is authoritative."
   I guess in this case the schema should not be in the appendix. And
would it be possible to make sure the schema does not disagree with the
text...?