Subject: [Sidrops] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rp-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 14:34:32 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-rp-06: 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-sidrops-rp/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

While this document is useful for a RPKI newcomer or implementer, I wonder
whether it should become a RFC even if informal... and the "requirements" in
the title is also conflicting IMHO with an informational RFC.

I wonder whether the "security considerations" section is really about security
considerations linked to this document or to the overall RP system.

Regards

-éric

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 10:25:12 -0400

Éric,
Informational RFCs have been used to document requirements, separate 
from standards track RFCs, in many cases.  A quick scan of Informational 
RFCs published over the past 20 years, with titles including the word 
"requirements" identifies over 200 such documents. So I don't believe 
the use of that term in a title is disqualifying per se. Admittedly, 
these RFCs often were generated to provide guidance for later standards 
work, e.g., establishing a basis for a WG that is being formed. In this 
case, the motivation for a post hoc Informational RFC is the plethora of 
separate RFCs that establish processing criteria for an RP dealing with 
repository objects. The WG believes that this is a valid rationale for 
publication.
> considerations linked to this document or to the overall RP system.
The Security Considerations in this document are associated with relying 
party processing of data acquired from the repository system. There are 
a broader set of security considerations for the RPKI that address the 
behavior of the CAs and repository operators, not to mention how ISPs 
make use of the RPKI data after it has been validated.

Steve

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 10:25:12 -0400

Éric,

Steve