Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-05
review-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-05-rtgdir-telechat-vigoureux-2022-04-14-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Telechat Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2022-03-31
Requested 2022-03-10
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Randy Bush , Russ Housley
I-D last updated 2022-06-08 (Latest revision 2022-04-20)
Completed reviews Artart IETF Last Call review of -04 by Tim Bray (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -05 by Martin Vigoureux (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -04 by Matt Joras (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -05 by Tim Bray (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Martin Vigoureux
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/A6ZSk8bBAdA3NtNIRlo6HsqIJJQ
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready
Completed 2022-04-14
review-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-05-rtgdir-telechat-vigoureux-2022-04-14-00
Reviewer: Martin Vigoureux
Review result: Ready

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related 
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and 
sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide 
assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it 
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF 
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through 
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity
Reviewer: Martin Vigoureux
Review Date: 2022-04-13
Telechat Date: 2022-04-14
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

No major issues found. This document is ready for publication.

Comments:

The document sometimes uses "owner" when referring to the entity which 
has the INRs. I wonder whether this is intentional, and if not, whether 
using "holder" (as done in other places of the document) would be more 
appropriate.

    The RPKI's strong authority
    over ownership of INRs has misled some people toward a desire to use
    RPKI private keys to sign arbitrary documents attesting that the INR
    'owner' of those resources has attested to the authenticity of the
    document content.
I found the double use of attesting/has attested confusing, but that may 
only be me parsing this incorrectly.