On 2/1/21 12:49 AM, [email protected] wrote:
I support this
hi,
I very much appreciate the intentions of this text and hope to see the
solutions it proposes widely adopted: I'm planning to implement it
myself right away. therefore, I would like to express my support for
this draft.
besides, I would like to make some small notes on the text:
1. I believe it may be more correct to refer to RFC 4012 rather than
2622 (as inet6num support is declared in this draft)
2. paragraph 4, first block, I think it should say "there IS a fair
number of them."
3. paragraph 5 "The geofeed files SHOULD be published over and fetched
using https". maybe the word https should be capitalized HTTPS?
4. paragraph 6 "If an inetnum: for a wide prefix (e.g. a / 16) points to
an RPKI-signed geofeed file, a customer or attacker could publish a
unsigned". maybe s/a unsigned/an unsigned/ ?
5. oh, speaking of Iff, I would prefer if and only if, extended.
thank you
--
antonio prado
AP7729-RIPE
SBTAP, AS59715
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
