A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)
draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis-09

[Ballot comment]
There was some discussion of SHOULD vs. MUST in the context of this document, and a preference for SHOULD in order not to immediately render older implementations invalid or to support backward compatibility.  I'm sympathetic to this position, but in such situations I would prefer that we be explicit that this is the only "out" allowed by the SHOULD.  Otherwise, we are technically allowing new implementations of the old way to claim compliance.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks very much for doing this work. The only comment I have is to echo the others who questioned whether the newly introduced SHOULDs should be MUSTs, and if not, why not?

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis-08

Thank you for the work put into this document. ROA are indeed critical for the security and stability of the Internet. As usual for a -bis document, I reviewed only the diffs.

Please find below 2 non-blocking COMMENT points.

Special thanks to Chris Morrow for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *but it lacks* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Haoyu Song, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review (even for just a nit):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis-07-intdir-telechat-song-2023-11-01/

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS

## IPv6 Examples

No need to reply, but I regret that this I-D only uses IPv4 examples in the normative part in 2023... The IPv6 example in appendix B is a nice one though.

## Section 4.3.2.2

When can an operator deviate from the SHOULD in `The maxLength element SHOULD NOT be encoded if the maximum length is equal to the prefix length.` ? I.e., why is it not a MUST ?

[Ballot comment]
** Section 4.  Editorial. 

OLD
A ROA is formally defined as

NEW
A ROA is formally defined in an ASN.1 module [X.680] as:

** Section 4.3.3

  In order to produce
  and verify this canonical form, the process described in this section
  SHOULD be used to ensure information elements are unique with respect
  to one another and sorted in ascending order.

Why are these canonicalization procedures not mandatory?  Shouldn’t s/SHOULD/MUST/?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are five actions which we must complete.

First, in the SMI Security for S/MIME CMS Content Type (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1) registry in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at:

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

the existing registration for:

Decimal: 24
Description: id-ct-routeOriginAuthz
References: [RFC6482]

will be changed to:

Decimal: 24
Description: id-ct-routeOriginAuthz
References: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the RPKI Signed Objects registry in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpki/

the current entry for:

Name: ROA
OID: 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.24
Reference: [RFC6482]

will be changed to:

Name: Route Origin Authorization
OID: 1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.1.24
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, in the RPKI Repository Name Schemes also in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpki/

the current entry for:

Filename Extension: .roa
RPKI Object: Route Origination Authorization
Reference: [RFC6481]

will be changed to:

Filename Extension: .roa
RPKI Object: Route Origination Authorization
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0) in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at:

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

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: id-mod-rpkiROA-2023
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Fifth, in the application namespace of the Media Types registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

the existing registration for:

Name: rpki-roa
Template: application/rpki-roa
Reference: [RFC6481]

will be changed to:

Name: rpki-roa
Template: application/rpki-roa
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

and the template will be updated with the information in [ RFC-to-be; Section 7.5].

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed 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. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Jim Fenton. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-10-23):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis@ietf.org, morrowc@ops-netman.net, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the SIDR Operations WG (sidrops) to
consider the following document: - 'A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations
(ROAs)'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-10-23. 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 standard profile for Route Origin
  Authorizations (ROAs).  A ROA is a digitally signed object that
  provides a means of verifying that an IP address block holder has
  authorized an Autonomous System (AS) to originate routes to one or
  more prefixes within the address block.  This document obsoletes RFC
  6482.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidrops-rfc6482bis/



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

WG consensus was long in coming, but is solid at this point.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

nope.


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

nope.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Not a protocol document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

There was review of the ASN.1 elements by Russ Housley / Stephen Kent.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

not required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

no yang model

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.


Several reviews by WG members for form/content/etc happened, as well as in depth reviews
of the asn.1 aspects and x.509 aspects by experts were conducted.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

There are some minor nits in the current version, all will be sorted by final
version hand-off to editor.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

addressed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Standards-Track/proposed-standard set in the UI.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

yes.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are, all will be sorted out prior to publication.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

all set here.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There's a missing reference for a pending publication, we'll sort this out properly as well.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

no.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

I believe the plan is to get the document sent to the IESG for publication.
Holding this at the editor is fine, until that work is complete.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.


It should obsolate RFC6482, since this is a -bis for that document.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).


the iana considerations section seems to be in order.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

no new registries, just registrations in existing registries are registered in this
registry request.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

WG consensus was long in coming, but is solid at this point.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

nope.


3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize 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.)

nope.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

Not a protocol document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

There was review of the ASN.1 elements by Russ Housley / Stephen Kent.


6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

not required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

no yang model

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.


Several reviews by WG members for form/content/etc happened, as well as in depth reviews
of the asn.1 aspects and x.509 aspects by experts were conducted.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

There are some minor nits in the current version, all will be sorted by final
version hand-off to editor.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

addressed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Standards-Track/proposed-standard set in the UI.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

yes.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are, all will be sorted out prior to publication.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

all set here.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

There's a missing reference for a pending publication, we'll sort this out properly as well.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

no.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

I believe the plan is to get the document sent to the IESG for publication.
Holding this at the editor is fine, until that work is complete.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.


It should obsolate RFC6482, since this is a -bis for that document.

20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).


the iana considerations section seems to be in order.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

no new registries, just registrations in existing registries are registered in this
registry request.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/