Definitions of Managed Objects for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) to Router Protocol
draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib-07

[Ballot comment]
First two paragraphs of section 4: Does it not strike anyone else as the height of silliness that I have to be reminded here that the references in the "Normative References" section are, in fact, normative? And by the way (regarding the second paragraph): Is there non-informative information? Who'd have guessed?

[Ballot discuss]
I have not seen any reply to the MIB doctor review done by David Harrington. See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mib-doctors/current/msg01732.html

On top of that,
- please use http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/mib-security, or justify why you need a different one

-    rpkiRtrCacheServerPreference OBJECT-TYPE
      SYNTAX      Unsigned32 (0..255)
      MAX-ACCESS  read-only
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION "The routers' preference for this
                    RPKI cache server.

                    A lower value means more preferred. If two
                    entries have the same preference, then the
                    order is arbitrary.

                    If no order is specified in the configuration
                    then this value is set to 255."


I don't understand the sentence:

    If no order is specified in the configuration
                    then this value is set to 255."

Configuration of what? This is misleading as this is a non read-write (monitoring) MIB module.
Do you mean a config knob in RFC 6810? Please specify.


- Clarifying question (not sure if this is a DISCUSS at this point in time):
I take as granted that the RpkiRtrConnectionType will not need new value (even in future RFCs that might import this MIB module).
If there is a risk, a separate MIB module/RFC might be appropriate.

- Clarifying question (not sure if this is a DISCUSS at this point in time):
  rpkiRtrPrefixOriginTableEntry OBJECT-TYPE
      SYNTAX      RpkiRtrPrefixOriginTableEntry
      MAX-ACCESS  not-accessible
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION "An entry in the rpkiRtrPrefixOriginTable.
                    This represents one announced prefix."
      INDEX      { rpkiRtrPrefixOriginAddressType,
                    rpkiRtrPrefixOriginAddress,
                    rpkiRtrPrefixOriginMinLength
                  }
      ::= { rpkiRtrPrefixOriginTable 1 }


This table gives the link to the unique ID of the connection with

  rpkiRtrPrefixOriginCacheServerId OBJECT-TYPE
      SYNTAX      Unsigned32 (1..4294967295)
      MAX-ACCESS  read-only
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION "The unique ID of the connection to the cache
                    server from which this announcement was received.
                    That connection is identified/found by a matching
                    value in attribute rpkiRtrCacheServerId."
      ::= { rpkiRtrPrefixOriginTableEntry 6 }

Am I assuming correctly that we can only receive a (addressType, address, minLength) from one and only one connection?

[Ballot comment]
- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-26 is now RFC 6810

-

                    Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons
                    identified as authors of the code. All rights
                    reserved.
-> 2013

-
rpkiRtrCacheServerTimeToRefresh OBJECT-TYPE
      SYNTAX      Integer32
      UNITS      "seconds"
      MAX-ACCESS  read-only
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION "The number of seconds remaining before a new
                    refresh is performed via a Serial Query to
                    this cache server over this connection.

                    A negative value means that the refresh time
                    has passed this many seconds and the refresh
                    has not yet been completed.

                    Upon a completed refresh (i.e. a successful
                    and complete response to a Serial Query) the
                    value of this attribute will be re-initialized
                    with the value of the corresponding
                    rpkiRtrCacheServerRefreshTimer attribute."


A reference to RFC 6810 section 5.3 would be useful

[Ballot discuss]

  The Gen-ART Review by Brian Carpenter lead to some document updates.
  After those updates, Brian did another review on 19-Jan-2013.  He
  found that two issues remained unresolved.  Both of these need to
  be resolved.
 
  (1) In draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-26 the list of caches is stated to
  include:

    Name:  The IP Address or fully qualified domain name of the cache.

  I find no way to represent the FQDN option in the MIB module. We state
  explicitly in the 6renum documents that it should be possible to
  configure network elements using names in preference to addresses, so
  I think this is a problem. Of course, at run time, the FQDN will have
  been resolved into an address, but why isn't there also an FQDN object
  in the MIB module?
 
  I had a reply on this topic from one of the authors, but there has
  been no updated draft:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg08031.html

  (2) In draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-26 the preference is defined as:

    Preference:  An unsigned integer denoting the router's preference to
        connect to that cache, the lower the value the more preferred.

  That doesn't specify a range. The MIB specifies the range as 0..255.
  Is this an oversight in draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr? If not, it seems
  necessary to state what should be in the MIB object if preference
  > 255.

[Ballot discuss]
A small issue to clear up before I ballot 'Yes'

  rpkiRtrCacheServerNonce OBJECT-TYPE
      SYNTAX      Unsigned32 (0..65535)
      MAX-ACCESS  read-only
      STATUS      current
      DESCRIPTION "The nonce associated with the RPKI cache server
                    at the other end of this connection."
      REFERENCE  "RFCnnnn section 2"
      ::= { rpkiRtrCacheServerTableEntry 19 }

There is no mention of "nonce" in the whole of RFC6810 let alone in
Section 2. Perhaps this should read "Serial Number".

However, the Serial Number in RFC 6810 appears to be a 32 bit number.

[Ballot comment]
If you have the document open for further edits, please change self-
referential mentions from "draft" to "document" since, when it is
published as an RFC it won't be a draft.

---

The copyright date in the Description clause may be wrong.

---

draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr is now RFC 6810. I you have the document open
you could update it.

---

I unpicked why the upper limit of...
  rpkiRtrCacheServerRefreshTimer OBJECT-TYPE
      SYNTAX      Unsigned32 (60..7200)
...from RFC 6810 as...
  As the cache MAY not keep updates for little more than one hour, the
  router MUST have a polling interval of no greater than once an hour.
...and...
  A client SHOULD delete the data from a cache when it has been unable
  to refresh from that cache for a configurable timer value.  The
  default for that value is twice the polling period for that cache.

I also found...
  The cache MUST rate
  limit Serial Notifies to no more frequently than one per minute.

A note about this in the Description clause might have helped.

---

For what it is worth, you could have put a range on
rpkiRtrCacheServerTimeToRefresh derived from
rpkiRtrCacheServerRefreshTimer

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib-04 and has the following comments:

IANA has a question about the IANA action requested in this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the SMI Network Management MGMT Codes Internet-standard MIBsubregistry of the
Network Management Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

a new MIB will be registered as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD by IANA at time of registration ]
Name: rpkiRtrMIB
Description: Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) protocol
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA Question: Should the name be rpkiRtrMIB as indicated in the MODULE-IDENTITY section of the MIB or should the name be rpkiRouter as indicated in Section five of the current draft?

IANA understands this to be the only action required of IANA upon
approval of this document.

Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed
until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Definitions of Managed Objects for the RPKI-Router Protocol) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG
(sidr) to consider the following document:
- 'Definitions of Managed Objects for the RPKI-Router Protocol'
  as Proposed Standard

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 2013-01-14. 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 defines a portion of the Management Information Base
  (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet
  community.  In particular, it describes objects used for monitoring
  the RPKI Router protocol.




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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib/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?


This document is targeted to become a Proposed Standard. I think this is
approprite because it specifies a MIB for the RPKI-Router protocol.
The point of the MIB is to provide interoperability.


(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 defines a portion of the Management Information Base
(MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet
community. In particular, it describes objects used for monitoring
the RPKI Router protocol.

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 document is non controversial and didn't have many WG reviews,
but I believe it is a good quality document.

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?

I am not aware of any existing implementations.

A MIB Doctor review still needs to happen. Bert is one of MIB Doctors,
but a sanity check by another one would be useful.

Personnel

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

Alexey Melnikov is the Document Shepherd.
Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director.


(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.

I performed my usual WG chair review which typically includes:
1) making sure that the document is clear (readable)
2) check for missing references and for their type (Normative versa Informative)
3) make sure that the IANA consideration matches the document
4) check id-nits results


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

No.

(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.

I don't think so. The MIB Doctor review is already mentioned above.


(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.

No concerns.

(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.

Each author confirmed that they have no IPR disclosure to make on the document.

(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 disclosure was filed on the document.

(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?

MIBs don't usually attract hordes of excited reviewers, but I think
for what the document describes the number of reviews was sufficient,
so it has WG consensus.

(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.)

I am not aware of any threats of appeal.

(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.

Id-nits reports:

== The document seems to use 'NOT RECOMMENDED' as an RFC 2119 keyword, but
does not include the phrase in its RFC 2119 key words list.

I think this can be fixed by RFC Editor.

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

My understanding is that MIB Doctor review would happen during IETF LC.
No other types of review are needed.

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

Yes.

(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?

There is one normative reference to a document in RFC Editor's queue
(draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr).

(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.

The are no DownRefs.

(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.

No.

(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).

The IANA Considerations requests a new OID from the SMI registry.
I believe this is correct and the only action required for this document.


(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.

This document doesn't create new registries.

(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.

MIB in this document was verified with smilint.