#3: Nit Report - CP draft
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: g...@… | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone:
Component: cp | Version:
Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords:
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Oppose.
Although opposition is based on a small number of nits:
* Section 1.7, page 11. "RPKI signed Object" ... "declared to be such by a
standards track RFC issued by the SIDR WG"
Over time, the SIDR WG may not exist, or the name could change, or valid
RPKI objects come from other WG's. Perhaps 'issued by the IETF'
* Section 3.1.1 Types of names.
I think the section should it clear that names for the top level are
meaningless as covered in sidr-arch. It touches briefly on this in 3.1.3
"(and Issuer)" but appears in my reading to be ambiguous.
Perhaps " Names for IANA and RIRs will be meaningless directory
distinguished ....."
* Section 4.6.1-3 I'd like it made clear that renewal be only to the same
subscriber. eg the subscriber before and after renewal is the same. At
present it says that only the valid subscriber may request renewal, but
allows a new private key. I think there is too much wriggle room in that
for
a subscriber to renew with someone else's private key.
* Sections 9.12.1, 9.12.2, 9.12.3.. If the CP is administered by the IESG
(section 1.6.1) shouldn't that also be reflected here?
Cheers
Terry
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/sidr/trac/ticket/3>
sidr <http://tools.ietf.org/sidr/>
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
