Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-04
review-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-04-opsdir-lc-taylor-2015-07-19-00

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.

Issues:



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/