Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Router Implementation Report
draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-05

[Ballot comment]
Editorial nit: It seems clear that some of these implementations are client-only and some server-only (not clear if any are both, maybe rpki.net).  It might be helpful to note somewhere which is which, and maybe group the table columns into clients and servers.

It's disappointing that the transport report in Section 5 does not indicate that any secure transport is universally supported.  Given that SSH seems to enjoy pretty wide support, might it be worth considering updating RFC 6810 to say that SSH MUST be implemented, at least by servers?  Not a comment for this document, but for the WG more generally.

[Ballot comment]
Suresh Krishnan's Gen-ART review raised some questions. Is there an answer?

----

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC but I do have a few comments that the authors may wish to consider.

Minor
=====

* Section 4

-> The sequences specified in this section do not map directly onto the sequences mentioned in Section 6 of RFC6810. Not sure why there is a mismatch.

-> It is unclear what the following footnote means since the row is concerning S2 and Section 6.2 of RFC6810 is the one that deals with a typical exchange.

"1) NO, we always respond as described in 6.3 of [RFC6810]"

* Section 5

RFC6810 does talk about IPsec as a transport at a SHOULD level, but it is not at all covered here in the support table.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for carrying out this work.

I have one question (at comment level, I'm already No-Obj), and I'm not sure whether I lack imagination or math skills.

In this text: 4.  Protocol Sequence

  Does RPKI Router protocol implementation follow the four protocol
  sequences as outlined in Section 6 of [RFC6810]?

  S1:  Start or Restart

  S2:  Typical Exchange

  S3:  Generation of Incremental Updates Sequence

  S4:  Receipt of Incremental Updates Sequence

  S5:  Generation of Cache has No data Sequence

I'm counting five sequences here, but when I compare to the four sequences in Section 6 of [RFC6810], I see 6.  Protocol Sequences

  The sequences of PDU transmissions fall into three conversations as
  follows:

  6.1.  Start or Restart

  6.2.  Typical Exchange

  6.3.  No Incremental Update Available

  6.4.  Cache Has No Data Available

So, if I was trying to guess, I'd guess this (but I'm guessing):

S1 = 6.1
S2 = 6.2
S3 = ?
S4 = ?
?  = 6.3
S5 = 6.4

Obviously, I'm only pattern matching, so if this is super clear to everyone else, please carry on ... but I'm confused.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RPKI Router Implementation Report) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
(sidr) to consider the following document:
- 'RPKI Router Implementation Report'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-11-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document is an implementation report for the RPKI Router
  protocol as defined in [RFC6810].  The editor did not verify the
  accuracy of the information provided by respondents.  The respondents
  are experts with the implementations they reported on, and their
  responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for
  which their responses represent.  Respondents were asked to only use
  the YES answer if the feature had at least been tested in the lab.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

    (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
    is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
    title page header?

The RFC type being requested is Informational.
Informational is the proper type of RFC because this is an implementation report
of the features provided by several implementations of the rpki-rtr
protocol.  It is not itself a protocol
The title page header indicates that the intended status is Informational.

    (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
    Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
    examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
    documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

    Technical Summary

      Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
      and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
      an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
      or introduction.

This document is an implementation report for the RPKI Router
protocol as defined in [RFC6810].  The editor did not verify the
accuracy of the information provided by respondents.  The respondents
are experts with the implementations they reported on, and their
responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for
which their responses represent.  Respondents were asked to only use
the YES answer if the feature had at least been tested in the lab.

    Working Group Summary

      Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
      example, was there controversy about particular points or
      were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
      rough?

This is a survey of existing implementations, so not a matter subject
to much opinion or dispute.  Discussion on the working group list was
minimal.

    Document Quality

      Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
      significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
      implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
      merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
      e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
      conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
      there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
      what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
      review, on what date was the request posted?

As stated, the draft is a survey of implementations of a protocol.  As
stated, the subject matter is not really subject to dispute.  The
respondants were trusted to provide true and accurate answers to the
survey.  There were few responses to the wg last call, but the three
co-chairs have all reviewed the draft and believe it is ready for
publication.  The draft is well written and organized.

As an informational survey document, there will not be implementations.
However, the document does report on implementations.

There were no substantive issues.  One reviewer did point to an
implementation that was not covered in an early version and that
implementation was added to the survey.

There is no need for MIB doctor review, Media Type review, or any
other expert review.

    Personnel

      Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
      Director?

The Document Shepherd is Sandra Murphy.

The Responsible Area Director is Stewart Bryant.

    (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
    the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
    for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
    the IESG.

The document shepherd read the draft in an early version and in the
final version, for clarity, thoroughness, consistency and care in the
formatted tables that report the survey findings.

    (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document shepherd has no concerns about depth or breadth of the reviews.
As said, the document is a survey of implementations.  In such a document,
reviews would be needed to check for inconsistencies, lack of thoroughness,
or typos.  The small number of reviews (including the three chairs) were
sufficient to do that check.


    (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
    broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
    DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
    took place.

N/A


    (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
    has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
    IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
    with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
    is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
    has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
    concerns here.

The document is an implementation report for a standards track
protocol that was published Jan 2013 as PS.  This is an early report
in the standards progress process, but good to report that this many
implementations (including two vendors) already exist.

    (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
    and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

All authors have responded to confirm their conformance with IPR disclosures.

    (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
    If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
    disclosures.

No IPR disclosures are noted in the IETF IPR database for this draft
or the individual draft this replaces.

    (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
    represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
    being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There have been no issues or disagreements noted.  Though minimal, the
responses have been uniformly positive. 

    (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
    email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
    separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

Not to the knowledge of the document shepherd

    (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
    document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
    Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
    thorough.

The id-nits reports:


    No issues found here.

    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).

One warning detected the use of a FQDN that was not the suggested example
domain name.  But that use was a reference to an existing URL, so not an
example.

The other warning and comment were the seemingly unavoidable statements
about rfc2119 boilerplate without use of that language, and the age of
the draft.

    (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

    (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
    either normative or informative?

Yes.  All are noted as normative.

    (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
    advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
    references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

    (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
    If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
    the Last Call procedure.

No.

    (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
    existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
    in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
    listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
    part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
    other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
    explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This docment may at some later state be used to support the advancement
of RFC6810 to full standard.  Publication of this document will not itself
change the status of RFC6810.  Widespread deployment and use of the
RFC6810 protocol is a much stronger requirement to meet.


    (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
    section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
    document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
    are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
    Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
    identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
    detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
    allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
    reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

This document makes no IANA requests and defines no protocol extensions to
any protool.


    (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
    allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
    useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new IANA registries are created or requested by this document.

    (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A.