Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-04: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I think it would be helpful to explain in Section 1 what the purpose is for having multiple URIs in a TAL. It is implied in Section 2.2 but would help to make it explicit. Regarding this text in 2.2: "In order to operational increase resilience, it is RECOMMENDED that the domain name parts of each of these URIs resolve to distinct IP addresses that are used by a diverse set of repository publication points, and these IP addresses be included in distinct Route Origination Authorizations (ROAs) objects signed by different CAs.” I think it would be good to point out why one might construct a TAL with URIs that do resolve to the same address in the exceptional case. Alvaro pointed out one case to me offline (diversity of DNS resolution despite the address sharing), but it might help to make the exception case explicit. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
