Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: 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-rtr-rfc6810-bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Review based on diff. [1] [1] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc6810&url2=draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08.txt - 5.1: To get around the hard-coded-sha1 thing could we do the same with the 20 byte SKI value as we did on some other recent RPKI spec? (IIRC, that was to say that if actual SKI is longer truncate left, and if shorter pad left with zero, but please check.) - section 9: What's the background to removing the statement that one of TCP-AO ssh etc SHOULD be used? What is the reality of deployments here? I assume it is not TCP-AO anyway but does TLS or SSH get used? - various places: I think 6810 was correct in using "that" and not "which" in many places. I realise that's a fairly frequent style thing that gets toggled though, but I bet the RFC editor sets a load of those back to "that" :-) _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
