Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-08-15
Requested 2017-07-26
Authors Geoff Huston , George G. Michaelson , Carlos M. Martínez , Tim Bruijnzeels , Andy Newton , Daniel Shaw
Draft last updated 2017-08-30
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Will (Shucheng) LIU (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Will (Shucheng) LIU
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08-opsdir-lc-liu-2017-08-30
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready
Completed 2017-08-30
I have reviewed draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08 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.

"This document specifies an alternative to the certificate validation procedure
specified in RFC 6487 that reduces aspects of operational fragility in the
management of certificates in the RPKI, while retaining essential security
features. The use of this updated procedure is signalled by form of a set of
alternative Object Identifiers (OIDs) indicating that the alternative version
of RFC 3779 X.509 Extensions for IP Addresses and AS Identifiers, and
certificate policy for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RFC 6484)
defined in this document should be used. Furthermore this document provides an
alternative to ROA↓ (RFC 6482), and BGPSec↓ Router Certificate (BGPSec↓ PKI
Profiles - publication requested) validation."

My overall view of the document is 'Ready' for publication.

One small comment is that we usually add a section for terminology for such a
document with so many terms. This can also solve the issue that some of the
acronyms were not given the full name.