Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-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-validation-reconsidered/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am agreeing with Ben's comments and I am generally concerned about lack of certificate extensibility in SIDR. (But I've raised this question when reviewing an earlier SIDR document and the WG didn't change its mind.) In Section 4.2.4.4: 3. The Version, Issuer, and Subject fields of certificate x satisfy the constraints established in Section 4.1-4.7 of this specification. There is no section 4.7 in this draft, so I think this should point to the original RFC from which this text was copied. On page 16: * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found in this extension. This looks like a cut & paste error. I think you meant "Identifier" and "VRS-AS" above? _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
