An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing
RFC 6480

I am balloting "Yes" for this document, but there are a few minor nits
that I hope the authors will attend to before publication.

---

The Introduction uses "CRL" without explanation. This does show up in
the Terminology section that follows immediately, but it would be nice
to clarify in the Introduction.

---

CRLDP shows up in Figure 3 and nowhere else in the document.
Please add a note to the text.

---

Figure 1 seems to be mysteriously missing.

---

Section 4.3 has a slight disconnect between the specification of access
protocols and the deployment of access protocols. Thus, when you say...

   each function must be implemented by at least one access protocol.

...I think you mean...

   each function must be implemented by at least one access protocol
   deployed by a repository operator.

Similarly, when you say things like...

  Download: Access protocols MUST support the bulk download of  

...it is ambiguous whether you mean "all access protocols" or "at least
one access protocol in the suite of access protocols" or "at least one
access protocol deployed by the repository operator"

---

Section 4.3

   To ensure all relying parties are able to acquire all RPKI signed 
   objects, all publication points MUST be accessible via RSYNC (see 
   [RFC 5781] and [RSYNC]), although other download protocols also be 
   supported.

s/also/may also/

---

Section 5

Since according to this text a manifest is a signed object, and since
the manifest is presumable issued by the authority, I would assume that
a manifest includes itself in its listing. But perhaps you should 
clarify this one way or the other.