Subject: [Sidrops] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-05: (with DISCUSS)

From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 06:35:51 -0700

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-05: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Tim Bray for his ART ART review:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/SKUKjoE9bPh62XsVezoD5mPAkz4/, and to
the authors for addressing Tim's comments.

I have one question for consideration (which will not require any textual
changes to the document): is "Standard Track" the proper track of RFC for this
document?

I am happy to be told by the authors, working group or responsible AD that yes
- this has been discussed and the consensus was that "Standard Track" is the
most appropriate track for this document. Normally I would look for such
information in the shepherd write-up, but unfortunately I can't find my answer
there, nor through my superficial archive search.

Note I am not questioning the need for this document, which I understand has
been discussed and has consensus, barely its track - doesn't this fit better as
Informational, or even BCP (although I concur with Murray, BCP does not seem
appropriate)?

Francesca