Sandy,

I support the addition of multiple publication points as working group item and 
hope to go quickly through the process.

Roque

--------------------
Initial Comments:

Section 2.1
(Roque) We received the request from the WG to add a blank line break between 
the URI section and the public key. You can see the example on section 3. of 
the draft-ietf-sidr-multiple-publication-points-00 document.

Section 2.2:
(Roque) I find this paragraph confusing:
   The trust anchor MUST be published at a stable URI.  When the trust
   anchor is re-issued for any reason, the replacement CA certificate
   MUST be accessible using the same URI.
I am not sure the meaning of "stable URI" in this context. Would it be "stable 
URI section"? or "stable rsync URI(s)"?

(Roque) s/Becuase/Because



On Feb 7, 2014, at 8:47 PM, "Murphy, Sandra" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The authors of "draft-ietf-sidr-multiple-publication-points" proposed a new 
> direction for that draft that included:
> 
> 
> - A "6490-bis" document that obsoletes RFC 6490 with the addition of multiple 
> operators in section 3 of the current document.
> 
> 
> The wg having consented to that approach, the authors of RFC6490 produced a 
> new draft draft-huston-sidr-rfc6490-bis that would serve as the 6490-bis.
> 
> The authors of draft-huston-sidr-rfc6490-bis have requested that the wg adopt 
> this draft as a working group work item.
> 
> See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huston-sidr-rfc6490-bis-00, "Resource 
> Certificate PKI (RPKI) Trust Anchor Locator".
> 
> Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg adopting this 
> as a work item.  Note that you do not need to comment on the content of this 
> draft at this time.  You are asked to indicate if you think that this is work 
> that the wg should be doing and whether this draft is an acceptable starting 
> point.  Adding whether you can/will review or not is useful.
> 
> This adoption poll will end on Friday, 21 February, 2014.
> 
> --Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Reply via email to