Hi!
I have a couple of Major comments related to the existence/co-existence of two
versions of the protocol. I would like to see the comments discussed/addressed
before starting the IETF Last Call.
Thanks!!
Alvaro.
Major:
1. RFC6810.
* Section 1.2. (Changes from RFC 6810): "The protocol described in this
document is largely compatible with [RFC6810]." What does "largely compatible"
mean? It either is compatible or it isn't. From Section 7. (Protocol Version
Negotiation), it looks like there's no way for a router that only supports
version 0 to talk a cache that only supports version 1, and viceversa. Even
though the PDUs are mostly the same, that doesn't seem to matter...in the end
it looks like the versions are not compatible and in reality version 1 is
simply an update to version 0.
* This document is marked as obsoleting rfc6810, but it mandates its use
in section 7 ("...the cache MUST downgrade to protocol version 0
[RFC6810]..."). There are a couple of paths forward:
* It seems to me that this document should simply be called "RPKI to
Router Protocol version 1" and not change the status of rfc6810 - we can always
declare version 0 historic later.
* If you really want to obsolete version 0, then an alternative is to
eliminate the normative language when it refers to it... For example,
* OLD> "If a cache which supports version 1 receives a query from
a router which specifies version 0, the cache MUST downgrade to protocol
version 0 [RFC6810] or send a version 1 Error Report PDU with Error Code 4
("Unsupported Protocol Version") and terminate the connection."
* NEW> "If a cache which supports version 1 receives a query from
a router which specifies version 0, the cache SHOULD send a version 1 Error
Report PDU with Error Code 4 ("Unsupported Protocol Version") and terminate the
connection."
2. Section 7. (Protocol Version Negotiation) Related to the points above...
Are other versions of this protocol expected? I know the answer may come from
a crystal ball at this point...but can the process defined here be generalized?
Minor:
1. Implementation
* In Section 1. (Introduction) you reference rfc7128 for an
implementation report, but that RFC reports on the implementation of rfc6810,
and not this new version.
* It would be nice to include a section according to rfc6982 about
implementations of this version.
2. Section 9. (Transport) I think this sentence is superfluous: "Caches and
routers SHOULD use TCP-AO, SSHv2, TCP MD5, or IPSec transport.", because a
couple of paragraphs later the text also says "...caches and routers MUST use
one of the following more protected protocols" (and the same protocols are
revisited).
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
