Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08
review-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08-secdir-lc-miller-2017-02-14-01
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 09) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-01-30 | |
Requested | 2017-01-16 | |
Authors | Randy Bush , Rob Austein | |
I-D last updated | 2017-03-06 | |
Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -08
by Stefan Winter
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Matthew A. Miller (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Matthew A. Miller |
State | Completed | |
Review |
review-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08-secdir-lc-miller-2017-02-14
|
|
Reviewed revision | 08 (document currently at 09) | |
Result | Has Nits | |
Completed | 2017-03-06 |
review-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08-secdir-lc-miller-2017-02-14-01
[ re-posting old review to get it onto the mailing list archives; some bugs prevented it the first time ] I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Document: Reviewer: Matthew A. Miller Review Date: 2017-02-14 IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-30 IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-16 Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard, but has a minor concern that should be addressed. This document describes a protocol for distributing RPKI information to routers from trusted caches. Major issues: NONE Minor issues: * In Section 5.1. "Fields of a PDU", for the Flags: definition, it states that: """ The remaining bits in the flags field are reserved for future use. In protocol version 1, they MUST be 0 on transmission and SHOULD be ignored on receipt. """ However, this seems backwards to me. Would it seem safer that the reserved flags "MUST be ignored on receipt". Nits/editorial comments: NONE