Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-06: Discuss
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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) I agree with Mirja that this document seems to be missing the actual protocol specification, unless Section 6 is meant to provide the normative specification of how the messages are to be exchanged. Is it? If so, I would expect that to be explicit in the document. (2) If there is in fact supposed to be a protocol specified here, I have the same question as I had on draft-ietf-sidr-publication, which is how do the entities migrate from one version to another and do version negotiation? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.2.4: Per my comment on draft-ietf-sidr-publication, it would be good if service_uri accommodated either HTTPS or HTTP URLs, if HTTP URLs must be supported. 5.4: If it becomes obvious that a new reason code needs to be added to the <error /> element in the future, will that require a new version of the protocol? That seems like a bit of a heavy lift as compared to, say, creating a registry for these with an appropriate registration policy. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
