Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation-02
review-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation-02-genart-lc-dunbar-2018-08-03-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2018-08-10 | |
Requested | 2018-07-27 | |
Authors | Oleg Muravskiy , Tim Bruijnzeels | |
I-D last updated | 2018-08-03 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -02
by Linda Dunbar
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Linda Dunbar |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 03) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2018-08-03 |
review-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation-02-genart-lc-dunbar-2018-08-03-00
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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation-02 Reviewer: Linda Dunbar Review Date: 2018-08-03 IETF LC End Date: 2018-08-10 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This draft describes one sample implementation of validating the content of RPKI certificate Tree. The description is clear, especially clearly described which section of RFC6487 are based for its implementation. Major issues: None. Minor issues: None. Nits/editorial comments: Section 9.1. the Hash Collisions is more of design in-complete instead of "Security Considerations". So is the section 9.2 In addition, why the implementation description has to be an RFC? clog up the RFCs