Subject: [Sidrops] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 02:59:31 -0800

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-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/blog/handling-iesg-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-6486bis/

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

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one non-blocking COMMENT points.

Special thanks to Chris Morrow for the shepherd's write-up including the
section about the WG consensus (even if I would have appreciated a
justification for the PS status).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

-- Abstract --
In "then the RP can detect "stale" (valid) data", is "valid" really the right
word to use ? I would naively expect "invalid". Or is it just an indication
that the data *was* valid and is stale? The use of "(.*)" in the abstract was
more to explain the previous word and this use is different and could confuse
the reader.

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 17:16:34 +0100

Dear Éric,

I think you raise a "valid" concern (no pun intended ;-))

I think something along the following lines might help clarify the
purpose of RPKI Manifests.

OLD:
    Specifically, if an RP checks a manifest's contents against the
    signed objects retrieved from a repository publication point, then
    the RP can detect "stale" (valid) data and deletion of signed objects.

NEW:
    Specifically, if an RP checks a manifest's contents against the
    signed objects retrieved from a repository publication point, then
    the RP can detect replay attacks, in-flight modification, or
    unauthorized deletion of signed objects.

What do others think?

Kind regards,

Job

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 02:59:31AM -0800, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:38:27 -0500

I think this is an improvement.

Russ

> On Jan 31, 2022, at 11:16 AM, Job Snijders <job=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Éric,
>

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 12:56:53 -0500

oh yea, that's nice :) I was struggling with the sentence myself (upon
re-reading eric's question) .. since it seems to be talking about:
  "you have a remote copy (the RP) and your copy, the manifest helps you
tell what's going to change in the local copy"
  (missing the context of local/remote copy correlation did me in)

anyway, yay! better text.

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:38 AM Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/