Rob: Thanks for the update! I’m starting the IETF Last Call.
I have two comments that result from not Obsoleting RFC6810: 1. If this document is not Obsoleting RFC6810, then clarifying the title would avoid confusion from having 2 RFCs with the same name. My suggestion is to change the title of this document to “The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol, Version 1”. 2. The IANA Considerations section is not as prescriptive as it should be, for example: the document says that “Assuming that the registry allows range notation in the Protocol Version field…”, while the rpki-rtr-pdu registry [1] already has a version column (so it does already support version specific details). For this document, IANA should only deal with Version 1 additions to the registry, so there’s no need to mention version 0 (except for the Type 9 PDU). I think this should be easy to resolve, and IANA will probably point it our during the Last Call – so let’s wait for their comments and fix the text then. Alvaro. [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/rpki/rpki.xhtml#rpki-rtr-pdu On 1/7/17, 5:51 PM, "sidr on behalf of Rob Austein" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: With apologies to the WG and our AD for taking so ridiculously long (deadlines on other projects, but that's no excuse), we have finally uploaded an updated I-D which we hope deals with most (all?) of the issues that came up during AD review, as well as a few minor clarifications and wording tweaks. No protocol changes, just (we hope) better description of the protocol. The one important change here in terms of IETF standardization is that we've dropped the notion that this document should obsolete RFC 6810. While Alvaro kindly offered to help us find a twisty path which would let us write a single document which would both deprecate RFC 6810 (protocol version zero) and also specifying how to downgrade from version one to version zero, on reflection the authors agreed that this is not worth the procedural headache. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
