Subject: [sidr] Terry Manderson's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-14: (with COMMENT)

From: "Terry Manderson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 19:16:55 -0800

Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-14: 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-ops/

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

Thanks for creating a document to begin to pen the upcoming gotchas of
BGPsec.

I have a couple small comments.

Section 3. "All non-ROA considerations in the section on RPKI
Distribution and Maintenance of [RFC7115] apply."

Apart from the sentence being stylistically terse (which I don't really
care about), If you follow this as a reading list and hit section 3 of
RFC7115 it leaves the reader wondering what considerations apply exactly.
May I suggest:

" The considerations for RPKI objects (Certificates, Certificate
Revocation Lists (CRLs), manifests, Ghostbusters Records [RFC6481]),
Trust Anchor Locators (TALs) [RFC6490], cache behaviours of
synchronisation and validation from the section on RPKI Distribution and
Maintenance of [RFC7115] apply. Specific considerations relating to ROA
objects do not apply to this document" 

Forward apologies if that sounds pedantic. 

This is surely early days of BGPsec adoption and use. I have personal
opinions about how adoption will go and what will be learnt or discovered
along the way. So I do share Stephen's observation about painting one's
self into a corner.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 13:06:28 +0900

> "The considerations for RPKI objects (Certificates, Certificate
> synchronisation and validation from the section on RPKI Distribution
> and Maintenance of [RFC7115] apply. Specific considerations relating
> to ROA objects do not apply to this document"

done.  one can tell you hang out with lawyers who are paid by the word.
it says the exact same think with six times as many words.

> opinions about how adoption will go and what will be learnt or
> discovered along the way. So I do share Stephen's observation about
> painting one's self into a corner.

we all have our worries.  but when a major rtgsec hits the wsj, at elast
we wil have a plan.

randy

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 08:50:18 +0000

Super, Thanks.

T.

    

    
    randy

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 13:42:34 +0000

Randy:

Just one nit: RFC6490 was obsoleted by rfc7730.

Sorry I didn’t catch this earlier.  I think this is the last change needed, so I’ll take care of it with a note to the RFC Editor.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On 1/4/17, 11:06 PM, "iesg on behalf of Randy Bush" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> on behalf of [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 22:46:09 +0900

> Just one nit: RFC6490 was obsoleted by rfc7730.

-16 pushed with fix