I'll go along with that. I'm not seeing any major structural alterations to the draft (at this stage) by doing that.
Cheers, Terry On 02/03/2013, at 2:37 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <[email protected]> wrote: > Great... so assuming the authors deal with this set of comments we'll > ask them to spin a new version and submit that for WGLC when it > arrives? > > Does that seem like a good path for those still listening? > > -chris > co-chair-1-of-3 > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> Below are some comments on the draft. I also submitted my nits to the >> editors. >> >> 0) Based on the assumption that draft-newton-sidr-policy-qualifiers will be >> adopted because that's what the RIRs want should s1.2 or 1.5 also include >> some information about where it can be found? This information would be >> identical to the URI included in the policy qualifier? >> >> 1) s1.6: CP - Is it worth nothing that there might be another CP for the >> BPKI? >> >> 2) s4.6.1: Not sure if this needs to go here but don't we need to say >> something about not renewing certificates forever? >> >> 3) draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying describes the procedures for operator >> generated keys (i.e., those that are not router generated). A couple of >> questions come to mind: >> >> a) Should the CPS point to that draft in s6.1.2 or will the CPS be updated >> when draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying is published? >> >> b) draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying allows operators sign the private keys they >> generate and subsequently send back to the router. Should this be >> explicitly called out in s4.5.1. For s.4.5.2, is the returned signed-key an >> RPKI-Signed Object? >> >> spt >> >> >> On 2/21/13 11:30 PM, Chris Morrow wrote: >>> >>> WG folks, >>> As the subject states, let's please start a WGLC poll for the document: >>> draft-ietf-sidr-cps-01 >>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-cps-01> >>> >>> with the abstract: >>> "This document contains a template to be used for creating a >>> Certification Practice Statement (CPS) for an Organization that is >>> part of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), e.g., a >>> resource allocation registry or an ISP." >>> >>> So far the authors have made a few revisions, with updates based on >>> comments/feedback, at this time the document has been stable for more >>> than 6 months time, let's move this along if there are no further >>> issues/addendums/questions/appendixes. >>> >>> thanks! >>> -chris >>> co-chair-1-of-3 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sidr mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
