Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects Issued by IANA
draft-ietf-sidr-iana-objects-03
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) Yes
A document providing "specific direction to IANA" (and for which an interop statement is never going to make sense) would fit better as a BCP - why was PS chosen instead?
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
I support Alexey's DISCUSS and I have one supplementary question concerning the following paragraph in Section 5: > IANA SHOULD issue an AS0 ROA for all reserved IPv4 and IPv6 resources not intended to be routed. Why is this a should? Why not a MUST? If there are exceptions does IANA know and understand all cases when they apply?
(David Harrington; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
What kind of change/CRL/processing load is expected from certification of unallocated space at IANA, as that space keeps changing (in the case IPv6)? From Ari Keränen's review: 8. Multicast IANA MUST NOT issue any ROAs (AS0 or otherwise) for any other multicast addresses unless directed. Directed by whom? Need to have, e.g., IESG Approval?
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
Please consider the comment from the Gen-ART Review by Wassim Haddad on 16-Mar-2011. I believe that improved clarity is desirable.
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) No Objection
Thank you for addressing Alexey's Discuss's and the IESG review coments.