Hello Randy Thank you for the quick reply, you have replied to all my non-blocking comments. See below for a couple of further comments on your comments, look for EV>
Regards -éric -----Original Message----- From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Randy Bush <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 20 May 2021 at 01:04 To: "\"Éric Vyncke via Datatracker\"" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-10: (with COMMENT) > -- Section 3 -- > Having a standards track document relying on a 'remarks:' attribute looks > really weird. Should it rather be informational ? NB: I understand that > changing the RPSL syntax is mostly mission impossible. note that it also specifies the "Geofeed:" attribute > Should the case when both "remarks: Geofeed" and "geofeed" are present but > differ be mentioned ? you want more/other than Any particular inetnum: object MUST have at most, one geofeed reference, whether a remarks: or a proper geofeed: attribute when it is implemented. If there is more than one, all are ignored. EV> indeed, more than enough. Unsure why I failed to spot this § > -- Section 4 -- > What happens if the public key of the certificate is changed? Should the cert > serial number be part of the signature? Or at least mention the obvious that > the signature must be re-executed when the cert if changed (e.g., in > section 5). added If the geofeed file is signed, and the signer's certificate changes, the signature in the geofeed file MUST be updated. > -- Section 5 -- > Is there any reason why the doc shepherd is not acknowledged ? in what way was this insufficient? The authors also thank George Michaelson, the document shepherd, ... EV> sorry, it was a copy & paste error of mine ☹ > I find the use of the colon in "inetnum:" quite annoying and > confusing. so say we all. but it seems to be the convention in the RPSL docs. EV> ;-) > The use of quotes in the last § of section 3 is easier to read and > parse i think we're in RDAP land at that point. perhaps massimo and/pr ggm, who are more clued in that space could comment. > -- Section 3 -- > Do the examples really need to be in IPv4 ? ;-) i am old EV> ;-) > -- Section 4 -- > The use of "department" in "getting the department with the Hardware > Security Module" is difficult to understand by non-English native > readers (at least for me as I had to re-read it twice and guess the > meaning). prefer "part of the company?" EV> so, it was really a "department" as in "part of the company" now I am unsure whether this discussion is useful, hence I was thinking that I could not parse it. randy _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
