Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-09: 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for resolving my DISCUSS points. I note that there is new explanatory text in the abstract. I suggest similar text be added in an introductory section in the body, since readers are known to sometimes skip the abstract. I am leaving my other comments below for documentation purposes; I leave it to the authors and shepherd to decide if they are sufficiently addressed. ------------------- Substantive: - General: There's a lot of amending going on here--does this draft really not update any RFCs (e.g. 6487)? - 4.2.4.4: -- "Any extension not thus identified MUST NOT appear in certificate x." (Repeats multiple times) That seems to prevent future extensibility. Is that the intent? -- "Certificate x MUST NOT have been revoked, i.e., it MUST NOT appear on a CRL issued by the CA represented by certificate x-1" Is this intended as a requirement to check CRLs? If so, please say that explicitly. Editorial: -4.2.2.1: The third paragraph seems redundant to the first paragraph (pattern repeats in several sections.)he - 4.2.4.3: "Either the IP Resources extension, or the AS Resources extension, or both, MUST be present in all RPKI certificates, and if present, MUST be marked critical." "... and if present..." seems redundant, since the previous clause said one MUST be present. - 4.3.4.3: "... values are NOT supported..." a floating, capitalized "NOT" is not defined in RFC 2119. I suspect the all-caps is just for emphasis, but we typically reserve that for RFC 2119 keywords. - 4.2.4.4 : -- "Certificate validation requires verifying that all of the following conditions hold, in addition to the certification path validation criteria specified in Section 6 of [RFC5280]." The "... in addition to..." part doesn't seem quite true. For example, making sure the current date fits in the active range, ensuring a cert is signed by the issuer, etc. are already covered in 5280. - - "...certificate MUST contain all extensions defined in section 4.8 of [RFC6487] that must be present." That seems tautologically true. If this is a statement of fact, then please avoid the MUST. If this is really a new normative requirement, then I'm confused at the intent. -- "all extensions defined in section 4.8 of [RFC6487], except sections 4.8.9, 4.8.10 and 4.8.10 MUST be present. " It would be more reader-friendly to mention what extensions are defined in 4.8.9. -- "7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below:" Inconsistent voice. -- list entry 7, 4th bullet: "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." That seems identical to the first bullet. Should it has said "AS Address Delegation extension"? _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr