Skip to main content

The Use of maxLength in the RPKI
draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-10

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2022-05-03
10 Kotikalapudi Sriram New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-10.txt
2022-05-03
10 (System) New version approved
2022-05-03
10 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.africa>, Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>, Kotikalapudi Sriram <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Sharon Goldberg …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.africa>, Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>, Kotikalapudi Sriram <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Sharon Goldberg <goldbe@cs.bu.edu>, Yossi Gilad <yossigi@cs.huji.ac.il>
2022-05-03
10 Kotikalapudi Sriram Uploaded new revision
2022-04-22
09 Chris Morrow
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2023.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering …
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2023.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors 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?

The document went through 9 revisions in the WG, had good conversation during
meetings and on-list.

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

No controversy was raised.

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.)

no appeal/etc.

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. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

No external reviews were required.


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.


There are no applicable criteria.

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

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.


These were not required.

### 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?

The document is clearly written, and ready to be handed off to the Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

No issues remain.

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

Best Current Practice.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.


Yes, all editors/authors confirmed no IPR claims.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

All editors/authors maintain willingness to be listed as such.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

There exist some check-nits warnings:
  1) use of private address space instead of documentation space
  2) 2119 boilerplate missing
  3) An extra reference (nist-800-189)
  4) Down-ref toward 6480 (judged not important to change)

These will be cleaned up as part of the next edit/push of the document.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

nope.

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

n/a

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

Downref to RFC6480 - "An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing"

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

None.

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.

no

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][12]).

There's not an IANA Considerations for this document, which seems to be fine.
The document discusses operational considerations in using/not-using the
'max length' field in a Route Origin Authorization (ROA) record.

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.

none.

[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
2022-04-21
09 Chris Morrow Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2022-04-21
09 Chris Morrow Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice from None
2022-04-21
09 Chris Morrow
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2023.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering …
# Document Shepherd Writeup

*This version is dated 8 April 2023.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this writeup 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], and informally. You will need the cooperation of
authors 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?

The document went through 9 revisions in the WG, had good conversation during
meetings and on-list.

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

No controversy was raised.

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.)

no appeal/etc.

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. Does this document need review from other IETF working groups or external
  organizations? Have those reviews occurred?

No external reviews were required.


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.


There are no applicable criteria.

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

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.


These were not required.

### 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?

The document is clearly written, and ready to be handed off to the Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. Do any such issues remain that would merit specific
    attention from subsequent reviews?

No issues remain.

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

Best Current Practice.

12. Has the interested community confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required by [BCP 78][7] and [BCP 79][8] have been filed? If not,
    explain why. If yes, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the
    intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosures, including links to relevant
    emails.


Yes, all editors/authors confirmed no IPR claims.

13. Has each Author or Contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed as
    such? If the number of Authors/Editors on the front page is greater than 5,
    please provide a justification.

All editors/authors maintain willingness to be listed as such.

14. Identify any remaining I-D nits in this document. (See [the idnits tool][9]
    and the checkbox items found in Guidelines to Authors of Internet-Drafts).
    Simply running the idnits tool is not enough; please review the entire
    guidelines document.

There exist some check-nits warnings:
  1) use of private address space instead of documentation space
  2) 2119 boilerplate missing
  3) An extra reference (nist-800-189)
  4) Down-ref toward 6480 (judged not important to change)

These will be cleaned up as part of the next edit/push of the document.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa?

nope.

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

n/a

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][10],
    [BCP 97][11])? If so, list them.

Downref to RFC6480 - "An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing"

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

There is a reference to draft:8210biz which is currently in the IESG queue.
There is a reference to draft-aspa-verification which is still progressing through the WG.

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.

no

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][12]).

There's not an IANA Considerations for this document, which seems to be fine.
The document discusses operational considerations in using/not-using the
'max length' field in a Route Origin Authorization (ROA) record.

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.

none.

[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://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78
[8]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[9]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
2022-04-21
09 Chris Morrow Notification list changed to morrowc@ops-netman.net because the document shepherd was set
2022-04-21
09 Chris Morrow Document shepherd changed to Chris Morrow
2021-11-22
09 Ben Maddison New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-09.txt
2021-11-22
09 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ben Maddison)
2021-11-22
09 Ben Maddison Uploaded new revision
2021-10-05
08 Ben Maddison New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-08.txt
2021-10-05
08 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ben Maddison)
2021-10-05
08 Ben Maddison Uploaded new revision
2021-08-24
07 Kotikalapudi Sriram New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-07.txt
2021-08-24
07 (System) New version approved
2021-08-24
07 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.africa>, Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>, Kotikalapudi Sriram <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Sharon Goldberg …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.africa>, Job Snijders <job@fastly.com>, Kotikalapudi Sriram <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Sharon Goldberg <goldbe@cs.bu.edu>, Yossi Gilad <yossigi@cs.huji.ac.il>
2021-08-24
07 Kotikalapudi Sriram Uploaded new revision
2021-02-22
06 Ben Maddison New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-06.txt
2021-02-22
06 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Ben Maddison)
2021-02-22
06 Ben Maddison Uploaded new revision
2020-11-02
05 Kotikalapudi Sriram New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-05.txt
2020-11-02
05 (System) New version approved
2020-11-02
05 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kotikalapudi Sriram <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Sharon Goldberg <goldbe@cs.bu.edu>, …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kotikalapudi Sriram <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Sharon Goldberg <goldbe@cs.bu.edu>, Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.co.za>, Yossi Gilad <yossigi@cs.huji.ac.il>
2020-11-02
05 Kotikalapudi Sriram Uploaded new revision
2020-05-09
04 Kotikalapudi Sriram New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-04.txt
2020-05-09
04 (System) New version approved
2020-05-09
04 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sharon Goldberg <goldbe@cs.bu.edu>, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Kotikalapudi Sriram <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Yossi Gilad …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Sharon Goldberg <goldbe@cs.bu.edu>, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Kotikalapudi Sriram <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Yossi Gilad <yossigi@cs.huji.ac.il>, Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.co.za>
2020-05-09
04 Kotikalapudi Sriram Uploaded new revision
2020-04-26
03 (System) Document has expired
2019-10-24
03 Sharon Goldberg New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-03.txt
2019-10-24
03 (System) New version approved
2019-10-24
03 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.co.za>, Sharon Goldberg <goldbe@cs.bu.edu>, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.co.za>, Sharon Goldberg <goldbe@cs.bu.edu>, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, Yossi Gilad <yossigi@bu.edu>, Kotikalapudi Sriram <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
2019-10-24
03 Sharon Goldberg Uploaded new revision
2019-04-24
02 Kotikalapudi Sriram New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-02.txt
2019-04-24
02 (System) New version approved
2019-04-24
02 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Kotikalapudi Sriram <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.co.za>, Yossi Gilad …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Kotikalapudi Sriram <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.co.za>, Yossi Gilad <yossigi@bu.edu>, Sharon Goldberg <goldbe@cs.bu.edu>
2019-04-24
02 Kotikalapudi Sriram Uploaded new revision
2018-10-22
01 Job Snijders New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-01.txt
2018-10-22
01 (System) New version approved
2018-10-22
01 (System)
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Kotikalapudi Sriram <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.co.za>, Yossi Gilad …
Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Kotikalapudi Sriram <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, Ben Maddison <benm@workonline.co.za>, Yossi Gilad <yossigi@bu.edu>, Sharon Goldberg <goldbe@cs.bu.edu>
2018-10-22
01 Job Snijders Uploaded new revision
2018-05-01
00 Chris Morrow This document now replaces draft-yossigi-rpkimaxlen instead of None
2018-05-01
00 Job Snijders New version available: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpkimaxlen-00.txt
2018-05-01
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2018-04-30
00 Job Snijders Set submitter to "Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>", replaces to draft-yossigi-rpkimaxlen and sent approval email to group chairs: sidrops-chairs@ietf.org
2018-04-30
00 Job Snijders Uploaded new revision