Hi Sriram,

thanks for your feedback. I comment inline.

> On 28 Mar 2016, at 22:14, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I read the draft. A few comments:
> 
> 1. RPKI validation refers to checking cryptographic integrity of the RPKI 
> objects such as certs, ROAs, etc.
> What you intend to signal from RS to peers is prefix-origin validation 
> results (RFC 6811).
> s/RPKI validation results/ prefix-origin validation results/g

Fixed.

> 
> 2. "Route-servers providing RPKI-based route
>   origin validation set the validation state according to the RPKI
>   validation result (see [I-D.ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered])."  (in 
> Section 2)
> 
> The reference cited here is incorrect. It should be RFC 6811.
> RFC 6811 defines the prefix-origin validation states and also provides the 
> validation algorithm.

Fixed.

> 3. How do you signal that the RS did not perform validation on an update (for 
> whatever reason).
> Is that implicitly conveyed when the "Prefix Origin Validation State Extended 
> Community"
> is absent in the update forwarded to peers? May be it needs to be said in the 
> draft.
> For instance, 'Not Found' should not be used as default value in the extended 
> community.
> 'Did not perform validation' should not be equated to 'Not Found’.

I see your point.
I do not want to add another state as ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling 
defines only the ones used in this draft. I would like to be as close as 
possible to ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling as this draft just adds 
another use-case (route servers) to the concept.
If validation could not be performed by the route server no community should be 
set. The receiving peer should treat the update as if no prefix origin 
validation information was provided by the route server for this prefix ever. 
If this is okay with you I will add section covering this topic in the 
Recommendation section.

Best regards,
Thomas




Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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

Reply via email to