Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-14: 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-bgpsec-ops/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for creating a document to begin to pen the upcoming gotchas of BGPsec. I have a couple small comments. Section 3. "All non-ROA considerations in the section on RPKI Distribution and Maintenance of [RFC7115] apply." Apart from the sentence being stylistically terse (which I don't really care about), If you follow this as a reading list and hit section 3 of RFC7115 it leaves the reader wondering what considerations apply exactly. May I suggest: " The considerations for RPKI objects (Certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs), manifests, Ghostbusters Records [RFC6481]), Trust Anchor Locators (TALs) [RFC6490], cache behaviours of synchronisation and validation from the section on RPKI Distribution and Maintenance of [RFC7115] apply. Specific considerations relating to ROA objects do not apply to this document" Forward apologies if that sounds pedantic. This is surely early days of BGPsec adoption and use. I have personal opinions about how adoption will go and what will be learnt or discovered along the way. So I do share Stephen's observation about painting one's self into a corner. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
