Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-04
review-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-04-genart-lc-krishnan-2013-12-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-11-27
Requested 2013-10-31
Authors Randy Bush, Rob Austein, Keyur Patel, Hannes Gredler, Matthias Wählisch
Draft last updated 2013-12-03
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Gunter Van de Velde (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Suresh Krishnan 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-04-genart-lc-krishnan-2013-12-03
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-12-03

Review
review-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-04-genart-lc-krishnan-2013-12-03

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see


http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html

).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-04.txt
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2013/12/03
IESG Telechat date: 2013/12/05



Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC but 


I do have a few comments that the authors may wish to consider.




Minor
=====

* Section 4



-> The sequences specified in this section do not map directly onto the 


sequences mentioned in Section 6 of RFC6810. Not sure why there is a 


mismatch.






-> It is unclear what the following footnote means since the row is 


concerning S2 and Section 6.2 of RFC6810 is the one that deals with a 


typical exchange.




"1) NO, we always respond as described in 6.3 of [RFC6810]"

* Section 5



RFC6810 does talk about IPsec as a transport at a SHOULD level, but it 


is not at all covered here in the support table.





Thanks
Suresh