Use Cases and Interpretations of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects for Issuers and Relying Parties
RFC 6907

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-12-18 for -05)
No email
send info
-- Section 1 --
Can we have an expansion of "RPKI" on first use?  It's never expanded at all, and it isn't until Section 2.1 that "RPKI" is used alongside a reference to a document where it is expanded.

-- Section 4 --
The first sentence doesn't belong in an RFC: it'll be outdated soon after the RFC is published.  Just omit it.

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-12-20 for -05)
No email
send info
  The authors seem to agree that a few minor changes ought to be made
  based on the Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 19-Dec-2012.  See
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg08010.html,
  as well as the replies to that message.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-12-18 for -05)
No email
send info
- general: I thought the sidr scaling analysis posted
recently as a comment on another sidr document was
interesting. I wondered how that might affect these
use-cases? Not asking that you add all that here but
perhaps there are some use-cases where [1] (if 
correct) might imply that something ought be said 
about latency.

   [1] http://techreports.verisignlabs.com/tr-lookup.cgi?trid=1120005&rev=2

- 1.4 has 2119 keywords, but I don't see any of those in
upper case - are the lowercase shoulds supposed to be 2119
language or should you just remove 1.4?

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info