One (final, I hope) comment in response to the second last call on this draft.
I think publication as a BCP is definitely appropriate, as this draft is entirely about a transition process. Thanks, --David ________________________________ From: Roque Gagliano (rogaglia) [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:49 AM To: Black, David Cc: Roque Gagliano (rogaglia); Stephen Kent; Sean Turner; [email protected]; [email protected]; Stewart Bryant (stbryant) Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-11 Thank YOU David for been such a great reviewer. I will solve the Idnits in my working version waiting for other comments during IESG review. Regards, Roque On Jan 17, 2013, at 6:38 AM, "Black, David" <[email protected]> wrote: > The -11 version of this draft resolves all of the concerns raised by the > Gen-ART review of the -09 version. I want to thank the authors for the > timely and productive manner in which the review's concerns were addressed. > > idnits 2.12.13 found a minor line length problem that can be left to the > RFC Editor to correct. > > Thanks, > --David > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Black, David >> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 3:26 PM >> To: [email protected]; Stephen Kent; Sean Turner; [email protected] >> Cc: Black, David; [email protected]; Stewart Bryant >> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-09 >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-09 >> Reviewer: David L. Black >> Review Date: December 28, 2012 >> IETF LC End Date: December 14, 2012 >> >> Summary: >> >> This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the >> review. >> >> I apologize for the tardy arrival of this review after the end of IETF Last >> Call for this draft - the last few months have been a rather busy time for >> me. >> >> This draft specifies the algorithm transition process for RPKI, which >> entails coordinated issuance of new certificates and other signed products >> across the collection of RPKI CAs in a fashion that ensures that at least >> one set of signed products is usable at all times. >> >> The draft is generally well-written and clear, but has an unfortunate >> nomenclature change problem that is the primary open issue[*]. >> >> Major issues: >> >> [*] Section 4.7 changes the meaning of the algorithm suite names (A, B >> and C) from prior sections. This also affects Sections 6 and 7. >> I have classified this as a major issue as I believe it introduces >> severe lack of clarity (and potential ambiguity) into the following >> two paragraphs in Section 7: >> >> During Phase 1, a CA that revokes a certificate under Suite A SHOULD >> revoke the corresponding certificate under Suite B, if that >> certificate exists. During Phase 4, a CA that revokes a certificate >> under Suite A SHOULD revoke the corresponding certificate under Suite >> C, if that certificate exists. >> >> During Phase 1, a CA may revoke certificates under Suite B without >> revoking them under Suite A, since the Suite B products are for test >> purposes. During Phase 4 a CA may revoke certificates issued under >> Suite C without revoking them under Suite A, since Suite C products >> are being deprecated. >> >> Despite the use of three letters (A, B and C), there are only two >> algorithm suites involved, and different instances of Suite A refer to >> different algorithm suites. In each paragraph, the first instance of >> "Suite A" refers to the same algorithm suite as "Suite C", and the >> second instance of "Suite A" refers to the same algorithm suite >> as "Suite B". >> >> It would be much better and clearer to not change the meaning of the >> algorithm suite names until the EOL date. In addition, this change >> should enable removal of the Suite C concept from this draft. I >> strongly recommend removing the Suite C concept, as the C-A-B >> chronological order of suite introduction dates seems counter-intuitive. >> >> Minor issues: >> >> Starting in Section 4.3.1, there are a number of uses of "will be" >> (future tense) in the milestone and phase descriptions. All of >> these uses of "will be" should be reviewed to determine whether >> "MUST be" is appropriate, e.g., as appears to be the case for >> this sentence in 4.3.1: >> >> Additionally, the new algorithm transition timeline document will be >> published with the following information: >> >> When "MUST be" is not appropriate, present tense (i.e., "is") is >> preferable. >> >> Nits/editorial: >> >> Abstract: The following two sentences don't quite line up: >> >> The process >> is expected to be completed in a time scale of months or years. >> Consequently, no emergency transition is specified. >> >> Also, section 4.2 indicates that a multi-year transition timeframe >> is expected, which suggests that "months" is not appropriate in >> the abstract. Suggested rephrasing: >> >> The time available to complete the transition process >> is expected to be several years. >> Consequently, no emergency transition process is specified. >> >> Section 2. Introduction: The first sentence in the last paragraph >> mentions a forthcoming BCP on transition timetable. The rest of >> that paragraph implies that the BCP is for a single transition, as >> opposed to being a BCP for transitions in general. It would be >> helpful to clarify that at the start of the paragraph, e.g., >> by adding "For each algorithm transition," to the start of the >> paragraph. >> >> Section 3 Definitions: Is there any concern about possible >> confusion of the use of "Suite B" in this draft with NSA Suite B? >> The draft is clear on what Suite B means for RPKI, but I suspect >> that RPKI Suite B and NSA Suite B are unlikely to match, if ever. >> >> Describing Phase 0 as both the steady state of the RPKI and the first >> phase of transition is confusing (e.g., in 4.3). It would be clearer >> if Phase 0 began with publication of the updated RPKI algorithm >> document (Milestone 1) and that the activities that are unchanged >> from steady state were described as not changing in phase 0. >> >> Starting near the end of section 4.3, the three characters >> |-> are used in figures to represent an RPKI hierarchy relationship; >> that relationship should be defined and/or explained before it is used. >> For clarity, I'd suggest swapping the order of the two paragraphs >> above that figure in 4.3 and making the following change at the end >> of the paragraph that is moved down (addition of the word >> "certificate" is the important change): >> >> OLD >> and shows the relationship between three CAs (X, Y, and Z) that form >> a chain. >> NEW >> and shows the relationships among the three CAs (X, Y, and Z) >> that participate in a certificate chain. >> >> Subsequent uses of |-> seemed clear to me. >> >> Section 4.5 Phase 2 says that Suite B product SHOULD be stored at >> independent publication points, but does not make it clear that this >> recommendation applies beyond phase 2. I suggest adding text to >> make that clear - a reference to Section 9 (which is clear about >> this) may be useful as part of that text. >> >> In Section 6, please expand the ROA acronym on first use and consider >> whether it should be defined in Section 3. I'm also assuming that the >> ASN acronym is intended to refer to ASN.1 content; if not, that >> acronym also needs attention. >> >> idnits 2.12.13 found a couple of minor nits: >> >> ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one >> being 23 characters in excess of 72. >> >> == The document seems to use 'NOT RECOMMENDED' as an RFC 2119 keyword, but >> does not include the phrase in its RFC 2119 key words list. >> >> Thanks, >> --David >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer >> EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 >> +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 >> [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 >> ---------------------------------------------------- >
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
