Subject: [sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 11:47:29 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-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-validation-reconsidered/

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

I am agreeing with Ben's comments and I am generally concerned about lack of
certificate extensibility in SIDR. (But I've raised this question when
reviewing an earlier SIDR document and the WG didn't change its mind.)

In Section 4.2.4.4:

   3.  The Version, Issuer, and Subject fields of certificate x satisfy
       the constraints established in Section 4.1-4.7 of this
       specification.

There is no section 4.7 in this draft, so I think this should point to the
original RFC from which this text was copied.

On page 16:

       *  If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in
          certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found
          in this extension.

This looks like a cut & paste error. I think you meant "Identifier" and
"VRS-AS" above?