Subject: [sidr] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:28:32 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-08: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS points, keeping COMMENTs below for
posterity.

5.2.4: Per my comment on  draft-ietf-sidr-publication, it would be good
if service_uri accommodated either HTTPS or HTTP URLs, if HTTP URLs must
be supported.

5.4: If it becomes obvious that a new reason code needs to be added to
the <error /> element in the future, will that require a new version of
the protocol? That seems like a bit of a heavy lift as compared to, say,
creating a registry for these with an appropriate registration policy.