Hi WG, Rob A. in particular :)

Can you please have a look at this version? If we don't hear any objections we 
plan to ask for WG LC one week from today.

See below for some small things that I already shared with co-authors and that 
are in our edit buffer. Just repeating here to save double work.

Cheers
Tim


---

@3.2:

current:

  o  One or more slurmTarget (Section 3.3) lines:

     *  In this version of SLURM, there are two types of values for the
        target: ASN or FQDN.  If more than one target line is present,
        all targets must be acceptable to the RP.


I believe this is somewhat unclear and incorrect for json. I think we should 
say instead:

  o  A slurmTarget element (Section 3.3), consisting of:

     *  Zero or more target elements. In this version of SLURM, there are
        two types of values for the target: ASN or FQDN.  If more than one
        target line is present, all targets must be acceptable to the RP.


So there has to be a slurmTarget:" element in the file, but it can have an 
empty list as its value. Which would mean "applies to all".



@3.3:

There is no 'header'. So I think we should say that "slurmTarget:" can have 
zero or more elements.

To be overly complete (if you want), we could give four examples:

empty:

"slurmTarget": []

asn only:

 "slurmTarget": [
      {
        "asn": 65536
      }
    ]

hostname only:

 "slurmTarget": [
      {
        "hostname": "rpki.example.com <http://rpki.example.com/>"
      }
    ]

both:

 "slurmTarget": [
      {
        "asn": 65536
      },
      {
        "hostname": "rpki.example.com <http://rpki.example.com/>"
      }
    ]


@3.4.1:

The grammar in the text that I provided for the numbered list seems in need of 
a little love..

So, rather than:

  1.  A Prefix Filter contains an IPv4 or IPv6 Prefix only, a VRP is
      considered to match the filter if the VRP Prefix is equal to or
      subsumed by the Prefix Filter.

maybe:

  1.  A Prefix Filter contains an IPv4 or IPv6 Prefix only and a VRP
      has a VRP Prefix that is equal to or subsumed by the Prefix Filter.

and similar in other places.. but we can also leave it to the RFC editor to fix 
this.





> On 13 Feb 2017, at 04:02, Declan Ma <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, all,
> 
> We authors just updated the SLURM by adding a new ingredient JSON, offered by 
> Tim,  to describe the SLURM configuration file format. 
> 
> Looking forwards to seeing your reviews and comments.
> 
> Thanks very much indeed.
> 
> Di 
> 
> ZDNS
> 
>> 下面是被转发的邮件:
>> 
>> 发件人: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> 主题: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-03.txt
>> 日期: 2017年2月12日 GMT+8 10:50:11
>> 收件人: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> 抄送: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> 
>> 
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing of the IETF.
>> 
>>        Title           : Simplified Local internet nUmber Resource 
>> Management with the RPKI
>>        Authors         : David Mandelberg
>>                          Di Ma
>>                          Tim Bruijnzeels
>>      Filename        : draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-03.txt
>>      Pages           : 17
>>      Date            : 2017-02-11
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>   The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is a global
>>   authorization infrastructure that allows the holder of Internet
>>   Number Resources (INRs) to make verifiable statements about those
>>   resources.  Network operators, e.g., Internet Service Providers
>>   (ISPs), can use the RPKI to validate BGP route origination
>>   assertions.  In the future, ISPs also will be able to use the RPKI to
>>   validate the path of a BGP route.  However, ISPs may want to
>>   establish a local view of the RPKI to control its own network while
>>   making use of RPKI data.  The mechanisms described in this document
>>   provide a simple way to enable INR holders to establish a local,
>>   customized view of the RPKI, overriding global RPKI repository data
>>   as needed.
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-slurm/ 
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-slurm/>
>> 
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-03
>> 
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-03
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sidr mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Reply via email to