Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 05:25:16PM +0100, Bert Wijnen (IETF): > Not sure why you send this to authors/editors. > > The document is in IETF Last Call. > So comments need to to got to IETF or IESG list. > > Your comments seem to be comments that get responded > to a WG or IETF Last Call. Those comments need to > go to WG and/or IESG or IETF list. > > > On 12/4/12 5:15 PM, heasley wrote: > > rpkiRtrCacheServerPreference doesnt indicate which is more preferred, 0 or > > 255, but should imo. > > > Since it is an Unsigned 32, I think that this text: > > > A lower value means more preferred. If two > entries have the same preference, then the > order is arbitrary. > > Which is present in the DESCRIPTION clause clearly explains > that 0 is more preferred than 255.
grumble; the mib import tool is truncating descriptions. sorry for the noise. > > shouldnt rpkiRtrCacheServerV4ActiveRecords et al be in an afi/safi table? > > in theory, other afis may be supported. > > > not sure I can properly answer this one. > possibly you'd like to see them there too? > > But I don't think this is a fatal flaw is it? you tell me; seems like afi/safi tables are common now and other rpki pairs are possible. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
