On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:02 AM Di Ma <[email protected]> wrote: > Warren, > > Thanks very much for your comments. > > Please see my responses in lines. > > > 在 2018年4月2日，05:02，Warren Kumari <[email protected]> 写道： > > > > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-07: 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-slurm/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I don't understand the targeting as it related to domain/host names (and > > suspect that others will have the same issue). > > > >> From section 3.3: > > " If a "slurmTarget" element is > > present, an RP SHOULD verify that the target is an acceptable value, > > and reject this SLURM file if the "slurmTarget" element is not > > acceptable.... Accordingly, the SLURM file > > source needs to indicate which RP(s) should make use of the file by > > adding the domain name(s) of the RP(s) to the SLURM file target... > > Such a target value is a server name expressed in FQDN. > > > > "slurmTarget": [ > > { > > "hostname": "rpki.example.com", > > "comment": "This file is intended for RP server rpki.example.com" > > } > > ] > > > > So, if I want to target multiple RPs (rpki1.example.com, > rpki2.example.com) can > > I do: > > > > "slurmTarget": [ > > { > > "hostname": "example.com", > > "comment": "This file is intended for RP server rpki.example.com" > > } > > ] > > > > ? > > The "domain names(s)" versus "hostname" vs "server name expressed in > FQDN" text > > is handwavey. I'm assuming that I'd need to do: > > > > "slurmTarget": [ > > { > > "hostname": "rpki1.example.com", > > "comment": "This file is intended for RP server rpki1.example.com" > > }, > > { > > "hostname": "rpki2.example.com", > > "comment": "This file is intended for the RP server, > rpki2.example.com" > > }, > > ]" > > Can you please make this clearer, and hopefully add more targets to the > > examples? This seems like an easy fix / clarification, happy to clear > once it > > is, er, clear. > > > > > > We authors have decided to drop the slurmTarget element completely. >
That works for me . Please (explicitly and loudly!) let me know when the new version is submitted and I'll remove my discuss. W > Initially the implementation team was thinking that it would be useful to > have the ability to offer the same set of SLURM files to all RPs deployed > in a network, where local config of the RP would then evaluate the > applicability of each file. However, now that both implementations (RIPE > NCC Validator and RPSTIR) progressed we reconsider and we feel that it > would be better to deal with this on the provisioning side. I.e. only offer > the SLURM file(s) relevant to each RP. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I have a few questions and editorial comments: > > > > 1: Section Abstract: > > ISPs can also be able to use the RPKI to validate the path of a BGP > route. > > I think you meant “ISPs can also use the RPKI..." > > > ACK. > > > > > 2: Section 1. Introduction > > "However, an "RPKI relying party" (RP) may want to override some of the > > information expressed via putative Trust Anchor(TA) and the certificates > > downloaded from the RPKI repository system." I think this should be > either "a > > putative Trust Anchor (TA)" or "putative Trust Anchors (TA)" (single vs > > plurals). I agree with others that "putative TA" is not a well known > term - > > perhaps you can find a better one? > > > > We will use ‘configured Trust Anchor(s)’ instead. > > > > Section 3.4.1. Validated ROA Prefix Filters > > In the "prefixFilters examples", I think it would be helpful to update > the > > comments to be more explicit about what is being matched (e.g"All VRPs > covered > > by 198.51.100.0/24 and matching AS 64497") > > > > > ACK. > > And we will update JSON related content in this draft based on Adam’s > suggestions. > > Di > >
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
