Skip to main content

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

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)

No Objection

(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Wesley Eddy)

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

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -05)

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -05)

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -05)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-12-18 for -05)
-- 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The first sentence doesn't belong in an RFC: it'll be outdated soon after the RFC is published.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)

                            

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -05)

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-12-20 for -05)
  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)
- 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)