Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-06: 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-rpki-oob-setup/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- High level comment: I'm not sure if 'protocol' is the right term for this spec. For me this doc rather defines a set of messages, however given it does not specify any action that must follow as a reaction to a message (as well as no choice of the publication nor BPKI protocol), I find the term 'protocol' here rather confusing. Smaller comments: - Some more abbreviations could be spelled out, e.g. CMS - section 2 is not needed - sec 5: "Appendix A is a [RelaxNG] schema for this protocol. The schema is normative: in the event of a disagreement between the schema and the following textual description, the schema is authoritative." I guess in this case the schema should not be in the appendix. And would it be possible to make sure the schema does not disagree with the text...? _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
