Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-ta-tiebreaker Title: Tiebreaking Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchors Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-ta-tiebreaker-04 Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 2026-05-22 IETF LC End Date: 2026-06-01 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is well written, and easy to read. However, I have both Technical and Editorial issues that I'd like the authors to address. Major issues: Q_MA_1: Is it explained why a shorter validity period is preferred in the tiebreaking scheme? The Introduction does talk about "unreasonably long validity periods", but that is not a generic explanation. I think this should be explained, both in the Introduction and in the the normative text in Section 2. Q_MA_2: The Introduction says that the 'more recently' issued TA certificate is preferred. But, Section 2 talks about using the "more recent notBefore". Those are 2 different things. Minor issues: N/A Nits/editorial comments: Q_ED_1: The document talks about "objects" and "certificates". What is the difference? Unless there is a reason for using both, please be consistent. Q_ED_2: The document talks about "locally cached copy" and "cached copy". Please be consistent. Q_ED_3: The document talks about "retrieved object" and "retrieved TA". Unless there is a reason for using both, please be consistent. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
