Subject: [sidr] Comments on sidr-roa-format-04

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:44:05 -0700

Matt/Steve/Derrick,

Some comments on the ROA format draft below..

Thanks!

-danny

---
Substantial Comments

-
This document uses the term "holder" as well, could we
define this in the arch draft, or elsewhere, and so that
it has a common unambiguous interpretation within the
context of the SIDR work?

-
The ROA validation text doesn't include signing Time
as a consideration at all, although 2.1.6.4.3 and
2.1.6.4.4 both suggest that it explicitly specifies
that it no way affects validation.  Text should be
added to the S 3. accommodating this.

-
It is normal to specify in the validation procedures
whether ordering of the procedures is required or not?

-
Does there need to be text about UTCTime v.
GeneralizedTime and their relation and employment
before and after 2049 and 2050, in the respective
sections?

---
Editorial Comments

-
Abstract: s/to that one/to one/

-
S 2.1.3.2.3.

s/of IP address prefix/of an IP address prefix/

-
S 2.1.6.4.2.

Shouldn't the reference to RFC 3852 be to S 11.2
(v. S 11.1)?

-
S 2.1.6.4.3.

s/of absence/or absence/

-
S 2.1.6.4.4.

The title of this section should have a space between
BinarySigningTime and Attribute.

s/of absence/or absence/

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