Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-07-23
Requested 2015-07-13
Authors Geoff Huston , Samuel Weiler , George G. Michaelson , Stephen Kent
I-D last updated 2015-07-19
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Wassim Haddad (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Tom Taylor (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tom Taylor
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 05)
Result Has issues
Completed 2015-07-19
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's

ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 

 These comments were written with the intent of improving the 

operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed 

in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. 

Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments

just like any other last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-04
Reviewer: Tom Taylor
Review Date: 2015-07-15
IETF LC End Date: 2015-07-23
IESG Telechat date: 2015-08-06

Summary: Ready with issues and tiny nits.


1) Transition: what will happen if an RFC 6490 RP receives a TAL with 

multiple URIs? Are you assuming that all RPs have to be upgraded before 

the Trust Anchor is updated? If so, that should be stated in a 

Management Considerations section.

2) As I read the new description of the TAL, there will be two line 

breaks after the last rsync URI. That is consistent with the example, 

but I'll just verify that this is the intent. Note that this is an 

additional line break compared with RFC 6490.

3) Further to management considerations, I note that the reference 

[TA-MGMT] was present in RFC 6490 but dropped in the bis document. 

Should there be a discussion of how the trust anchor is updated with the 

list of RPs to which it distributes TALs, and criteria for deciding 

which INRs go into each TAL?

Nits/editorial comments:

IDNits reports a normative reference to Informational RFC 5781.

Sec. 2.1, bullet 3 of the sequence: missing ")" after "[RFC4648]".

Sec. 2.2, final para, third line:
  s/operational increase resilience/increase operational resilience/

Sec. 3, bullet 4, third line: s/test/tests/