Ben,
Thanks very much for your comments.
Please see authors' responses in lines.
> 在 2018年4月4日,03:43,Ben Campbell 写道:
>
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-07: 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-slurm/
>
>
>
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
> Major Comments:
>
> §6: I also agree with Benjamin's sadness about the security considerations.
> The
> section really should at least discuss the potential consequences of an
> adversary inserting a false slurm file, modifying one on the fly, or
> eavesdropping on one.
We authors intend to work on a proposed standard mechanism for updating SLURM
files through a secure API in the near future.
The very proposal is intended to be in a separate draft for SIDROPS.
>
> Minor Comments:
>
> §1.1: The document contains at least a few lower case instances of "must".
> Please consider using the boilerplate from RFC 8174.
>
ACK.
> §3.3, 1st paragraph: "RP SHOULD verify that the target is an acceptable value"
> What is the criteria for acceptability?
As we authors have decided to drop slurmTarget element, this is no longer an
issue :-)
>
> §8.2, " [RFC4648]": The document requires Base64 encoding. Doesn't that make
> this a normative reference?
But it has been listed as a normative reference.
>
> Editorial Comments and Nits:
>
> [significant] Abstract (and throughout the document):
>
> I don't find the term "local view of the RPKI" to be descriptive. IIUC, we are
> talking about overriding assertions that come from the RPKI based on local (or
> possibly 3rd party) knowledge. This seems to me to be a different thing than
> providing a "local view of the RPKI", and I certainly would not have gotten a
> sense of that difference from the Abstract alone, and possibly not the
> introduction.
We will make the change as follows:
OLD:
However, ISPs may want to establish a local view of the RPKI to control
its own network while making use of RPKI data.
NEW:
However, ISPs may want to establish a local view of exceptions to the
RPKI data in the form of local filters and additions.
Hopefully this will give context to the term ‘local view’ throughout the
document.
>
> §1, last paragraph: Please expand or define rpki-rtr on first mention.
ACK.
>
> §3.4.1: Please expand SKI on first mention. (You do so in the second mention
> :-) )
>
>
ACK.
Di
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr