I have read (and implemented) this document, and support it going forward.
My only comment from this review is that the text "If it is present it MUST be ignored by the relying party" in sections 2.1.6.4.3 and 2.1.6.4.4 is perhaps a bit strong. The text immediately following in both cases is fine, and I believe expresses the real intent here: that relying parties not use these timestamp fields in determining whether a ROA is valid. As stated, however, this could be construed as forbidding an application that uses ROAs from using that field for any purposes whatsoever, which seems excessive. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
