Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-01-14
Requested 2012-12-14
Authors Randy Bush , Bert Wijnen , Keyur Patel , Michael Baer
Draft last updated 2012-12-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Paul E. Hoffman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian E. Carpenter
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib-04-genart-lc-carpenter-2012-12-26
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 07)
Result On the Right Track
Completed 2012-12-26
Please see attached review.


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib-04.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2012-12-26
IETF LC End Date: 2013-01-14
IESG Telechat date: 

Summary:  In good shape, two open issues


I see a note in the tracker that the MIB Doctor review "still needs to happen".
Since I'm not competent as a MIB doctor, I hope this has been done.

Major issue:

In draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-26 the list of caches is stated to include

  Name:  The IP Address or fully qualified domain name of the cache.

I find no way to represent the FQDN option in the MIB module. We state
explicitly in the 6renum documents that it should be possible to configure
network elements using names in preference to addresses, so I think this is
a problem. Of course, at run time, the FQDN will have been resolved into
an address, but why isn't there also an FQDN object in the MIB module?
It seem like there should be rpkiRtrCacheServerFQDN.

Minor issue:

In draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-26 the preference is defined as

 Preference:  An unsigned integer denoting the router's preference to
      connect to that cache, the lower the value the more preferred.

That doesn't specify a range. The MIB specifies the range as 0..255:

   rpkiRtrCacheServerPreference OBJECT-TYPE
       SYNTAX       Unsigned32 (0..255)

Is this an oversight in draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr? If not, it seems
necessary to state what should be in the MIB object if preference>255.


"Two Notification have been defined..."