Subject: [Sidrops] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:50:13 -0800

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover-03: 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-sidrops-bgpsec-rollover/

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

Thanks for a well-written document with clearly spelled-out rationale and
explanations.

I agree with others that this document looks like a BCP rather than a standards
track document; in particular, the following language is pretty compelling:

   This document does not contain a protocol update to either the RPKI
   or BGPsec.  It describes a process for managing BGPsec router
   certificates within the RPKI.

I also found a nit in Section 2: "In particular, if the AS suspects that a
stale BGPsec updates is being distributed..." Either remove "a" or change
"updates" to "update".