Subject: [Sidrops] one more comment on draft-ietf-sidrops-lta-use-cases-03

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:08:46 -0400

I thought about that latter

The abstract for this I-D says that it is attempting to outline use 
cases that motivate the need to create a local view of the RPKI. 
However, Section 5 (Some Approaches) goes beyond the scope of the 
abstract, suggesting solution approaches. I am concerned that several 
aspects of the analysis provided are not quite right. For example, the 
analysis begins by stating that, " ... ultimately the ROAs, not the 
certificates, which one wants to modify or replace." One can argue that 
it is the content of the ROAs, not the ROAs per se, that need to be 
modified or replaced. If one adopts that approach, then there is no need 
to create new certs to issue new ROAs, etc., as suggested in this 
section. If one creates and distributes revised ROA data, this can 
address the requirements discussed in section 4, and the additional 
needs suggested in places in parts of Section 5 (e.g., minimal 
modifications, archiving, reproduction, merging of different "recipes").

I suggest that either this section be amended to discuss this other 
strategy, or streamlined to avoid discussing solution approaches.

Steve