IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers-07
review-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers-07-genart-lc-robles-2025-08-06-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2025-08-06
Requested 2025-07-23
Authors Tom Harrison , George Michaelson , Job Snijders
I-D last updated 2025-08-21 (Latest revision 2025-08-18)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -07 by Ines Robles (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -07 by Darren Dukes (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -07 by Daniele Ceccarelli (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -07 by Barry Leiba (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ines Robles
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/nXNxjccU8nDuacA2JuWK0-RymE8
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-08-06
review-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers-07-genart-lc-robles-2025-08-06-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-manifest-numbers-07
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 2025-08-06
IETF LC End Date: 2025-08-06
IESG Telechat date: 2025-08-21

Summary:

This IETF draft updates the RPKI manifest-number rules from RFC 9286 by
providing guidance for the rare situation where a Certification Authority
(manifestNumber), a 20-octet counter that must increase with each new manifest,
reaches its maximum value. In such cases, the draft allows the CA to publish a
new manifest under a different filename, enabling Relying Party (RP) software
to treat it as a reset and accept the new manifest even if its number is lower,
provided the URI in the manifest Subject Information Access (SIA) extension
matches the one retrieved. To prevent misuse, the draft emphasizes that
filename changes should only be used as a recovery mechanism, not a regular
practice, and requires RPs to alert operators when such changes occur.

The document is well written.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: None

Thanks for this document,

Ines.