BGP Prefix Origin Validation
RFC 6811

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Stewart Bryant) Yes

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

Comment (2012-10-06 for -09)
No email
send info
I support the publication of this document.

It seemed strange to me that this was positioned on the standards track since it describes an internal implementation issue for individual BGP speakers (akin to other policy-based choices about which routes to select and advertise,or reject). This doesn't affect protocol behavior per se.

I turned to the Shepherd write-up for an explanation of the thought behind this decision, but sadly Question 1 of the write-up hasnot been answered in full, so no hints there.

However, since we hope that this function will become widly available in implementations to factilitate deployment and use of the RPKI system by inter-domain routing, I don't think this is a big issue.

(Russ Housley) Yes

Barry Leiba Yes

Comment (2012-10-07 for -09)
No email
send info
Just some little non-blocking stuff that needs no response:

Really a nit: you're taking what we usually call a "man-in-the-middle attack" and calling it a "monkey-in-the-middle" attack.  While that might seem cute, I find it distracting -- mostly because one wonders whether there's a technical reason for choosing an unusual term.

---

A few comments on the shepherd writeup -- no action for the authors, and the only action for the shepherd is to please consider this sort of stuff next time; thanks:

1. I agree with Adrian's comments.  Some discussion in the writeup of why the WG decided to put this as Standards Track would have been helpful, and question 1 does ask that (albeit not as clearly as it might).

2. In the Working Group Summary in response to question 2, the writeup says that "there was a fairly lengthy discussion in several in-person meetings as well as on-list," but gives no clue as to what issues the discussion was about.  Again, a few brief words on some key issues would have been helpful, especially for items that were primarily discussed off list.

3. The response to question 8 says, "Yes, there is an IPR disclosure. The WG has seen this and comments were made at an in-person meeting. There wasn't a blocking comment, however."  The question asks to "summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures," and this isn't a useful summary of the comments.  Such a summary is made more important by the fact that it was in person, and not on the mailing list, so there is no record we can go back to look at.

4. Adrian is NOT a "galactic policeman".  He is an INTERgalactic policeman.  You're selling him short.

(Sean Turner) Yes

Comment (2012-10-05 for -09)
No email
send info
Thanks for a clearly written draft.

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2012-10-08 for -09)
No email
send info
Just echoing Barry's point:
    Just some little non-blocking stuff that needs no response:

   Really a nit: you're taking what we usually call a "man-in-the-middle attack"
   and calling it a "monkey-in-the-middle" attack.  While that might seem cute, I
   find it distracting -- mostly because one wonders whether there's a technical
   reason for choosing an unusual term.

I had to search for the differences between man-in-the-middle and monkey-in-the-middle attacks.
Note that rfc4593 speaks about "man-in-the-middle"

Regards, Benoit.

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection