Subject: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-19: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 13:07:05 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-19: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A few strictly editorial comments:

- IDNits complains about some undefined references.

- Abstract: Why is the phrase "(to routers within an Autonomous System)"
in parentheses?

-2: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol explicitly excludes non-capitalized
versions of 2119 words. This draft does not. It seems different 2119
approaches among the various bgpsec draft could be confusing to the
reader.

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 17:37:10 -0500

> On Jan 4, 2017, at 16:07, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

== Missing Reference: 'ID.sidr-rfc6485bis' is mentioned on line 334, but
     not defined

Yep that gets fixed when I change it to: RFC 7935

  ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 6485 (Obsoleted by RFC 7935)

I haven’t a clue where this reference is and why this warning is there.

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC6818' is mentioned on line 416, but not defined

And this also seems to be a fail on nroffedit.  It’s in the list but not populated in the informative references. 6818 is in the rfc-ref.txt from which the references are pulled.  grrr

<aside> Have I recently mentioned how much I sometimes %$#@#$ hate the tools we need to use to make these drafts. </aside>

I’m going to claim I failed here, beg forgiveness, and hope that we’ll let the RFC editor help us out later in the process.

> - Abstract: Why is the phrase "(to routers within an Autonomous System)"

sigh - no idea - parentheses removed

> approaches among the various bgpsec draft could be confusing to the

Where’s that in draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol?

Regardless, I’m not sure that restoration will work in this draft because there are repeated MUST requirements from other RFC and my AD told me to not capitalize them :)

spt

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 17:19:55 -0600

On 4 Jan 2017, at 16:37, Sean Turner wrote:

> Regardless, I’m not sure that restoration will work in this draft 
> because there are repeated MUST requirements from other RFC and my AD 
> told me to not capitalize them :)

Oops, sorry, I meant to say draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops.

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean; are the non-capitalized 
requirements from other drafts intended as normative for _this_ draft? 
If not, then the treatment of non-capitalized 2119 words as normal 
English seems to help.

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 18:21:25 -0500

> On Jan 4, 2017, at 18:19, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Maybe I misunderstand what you mean; are the non-capitalized requirements from other drafts intended as normative for _this_ draft? If not, then the treatment of non-capitalized 2119 words as normal English seems to help.
> 

It’s more like: "As defined in RFC mubleqsuat, client must do this.”  The thinking goes (and I agree) that we should repeat requirements if we’re just quoting them.

spt

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 17:26:48 -0600

On 4 Jan 2017, at 17:21, Sean Turner wrote:

>>> because there are repeated MUST requirements from other RFC and my 
>>> AD told me to not capitalize them :)
>>
>> requirements from other drafts intended as normative for _this_ 
>> draft? If not, then the treatment of non-capitalized 2119 words as 
>> normal English seems to help.
>>
>
> It’s more like: "As defined in RFC mubleqsuat, client must do 
> this.”  The thinking goes (and I agree) that we should repeat 
> requirements if we’re just quoting them.

Without getting into specific reasoning either way: My comment was not 
meant to be binding, just something to consider.

Ben.
t