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

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:31:26 -0700

Adam Roach 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This seems like a good change. Not knowing much about the deployment
practicalities of BGP, I presume that the set of tools used for validation is
sufficiently well-known that CAs will positively know when it is safe to start
using the new OIDs?

I found the lack of an introduction section to be odd. Please double-check this
document against the I-D Nits document; and, in particular, section 2.2:
<https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html#anchor4>

I believe "Russ Housley" is misspelled section 8.

Please expand the following acronyms upon first use and in the title;
see https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt for guidance.

 - RPKI - Resource Public Key Infrastructure
 - AS - Autonomous System
 - ROA - Route Origin Authorization
 - CA - Certificate Authority
 - CRL - Certificate Revocation List