Great... so assuming the authors deal with this set of comments we'll ask them to spin a new version and submit that for WGLC when it arrives?
Does that seem like a good path for those still listening? -chris co-chair-1-of-3 On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Sean Turner <turn...@ieca.com> wrote: > Below are some comments on the draft. I also submitted my nits to the > editors. > > 0) Based on the assumption that draft-newton-sidr-policy-qualifiers will be > adopted because that's what the RIRs want should s1.2 or 1.5 also include > some information about where it can be found? This information would be > identical to the URI included in the policy qualifier? > > 1) s1.6: CP - Is it worth nothing that there might be another CP for the > BPKI? > > 2) s4.6.1: Not sure if this needs to go here but don't we need to say > something about not renewing certificates forever? > > 3) draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying describes the procedures for operator > generated keys (i.e., those that are not router generated). A couple of > questions come to mind: > > a) Should the CPS point to that draft in s6.1.2 or will the CPS be updated > when draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying is published? > > b) draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying allows operators sign the private keys they > generate and subsequently send back to the router. Should this be > explicitly called out in s4.5.1. For s.4.5.2, is the returned signed-key an > RPKI-Signed Object? > > spt > > > On 2/21/13 11:30 PM, Chris Morrow wrote: >> >> WG folks, >> As the subject states, let's please start a WGLC poll for the document: >> draft-ietf-sidr-cps-01 >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-cps-01> >> >> with the abstract: >> "This document contains a template to be used for creating a >> Certification Practice Statement (CPS) for an Organization that is >> part of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), e.g., a >> resource allocation registry or an ISP." >> >> So far the authors have made a few revisions, with updates based on >> comments/feedback, at this time the document has been stable for more >> than 6 months time, let's move this along if there are no further >> issues/addendums/questions/appendixes. >> >> thanks! >> -chris >> co-chair-1-of-3 >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> sidr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >> > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
