Subject: [Sidrops] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-algs-rfc8208-bis-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 13:36:20 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-bgpsec-algs-rfc8208-bis-04: 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-algs-rfc8208-bis/

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

Thank you for this easy to read update to RFC8208.  Below are a few editorial
comments:

(1) Section 1. Editorial nit.
s/BGPsec uses a different algorithm [RFC6090] [DSS] as compared to the rest of
the RPKI by using a different algorithm that provides similar security with
smaller keys making the certificates smaller;/ BGPsec uses a different
algorithm [RFC6090] [DSS] as compared to the rest of the RPKI that provides
similar security with smaller keys making the certificates smaller;/

(2) Section 2.  Editorial nit.
s/This section addresses BGPsec algorithms; for example, these algorithms are
used by BGPsec routers to sign and verify BGPsec UPDATE messages./ This section
addresses the algorithms used by BGPSec [RFC6090] [DSS].  For examples, these
algorithms are used by BGPSec routers to sign and verify BGPsec UPDATE
messages./

(3) Section 2.  The sentence “To identify which algorithm is used, the BGPsec
UPDATE message contains the corresponding algorithm ID in each Signature_Block
of the BGPsec UPDATE message” seems redundant given that the first sentence of
Section 2.1 says something very similar.

(4) Section 2.1. Editorial nit.  Make the use of constants here consistent with
the description of “special-use Algo ID”.  s/0x00 and 0xFF/0x00 (0) and 0xFF
(255)/