Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-04.txt

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 09:52:10 -0500

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-04.txt
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2013/12/03
IESG Telechat date: 2013/12/05

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC but 
I do have a few comments that the authors may wish to consider.

Minor
=====

* Section 4

-> The sequences specified in this section do not map directly onto the 
sequences mentioned in Section 6 of RFC6810. Not sure why there is a 
mismatch.

-> It is unclear what the following footnote means since the row is 
concerning S2 and Section 6.2 of RFC6810 is the one that deals with a 
typical exchange.

"1) NO, we always respond as described in 6.3 of [RFC6810]"

* Section 5

RFC6810 does talk about IPsec as a transport at a SHOULD level, but it 
is not at all covered here in the support table.

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 10:53:52 +0200

Thanks for your review, Suresh. Randy et al - any comments?

Jari

On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC but I do have a few comments that the authors may wish to consider.
> 
> Minor
> =====
> 
> * Section 4
> 
> -> The sequences specified in this section do not map directly onto the sequences mentioned in Section 6 of RFC6810. Not sure why there is a mismatch.
> 
> -> It is unclear what the following footnote means since the row is concerning S2 and Section 6.2 of RFC6810 is the one that deals with a typical exchange.
> 
> RFC6810 does talk about IPsec as a transport at a SHOULD level, but it is not at all covered here in the support table.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Suresh
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 18:21:33 +0100

> Thanks for your review, Suresh. Randy et al - any comments?

the comments of shuresh and <bzzt, no brain changing planes after 13
hour flight> about the poor correspondence between -impl and 6810 are
quite correct and embarrassing.  fix will require going back to all
implementors.  we will do so.

>> -> concerning S2 and Section 6.2 of RFC6810 is the one that deals
>> -> with a typical exchange.

the text will be changed to "we do not implement it"

>> RFC6810 does talk about IPsec as a transport at a SHOULD level, but
>> it is not at all covered here in the support table.

text will be added to say no one has implemented ipsec.  probably should
do the same for AO as pretty much all AO implementations are on the
powerpoint platform

randy

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:37:59 +0000

Hi Randy,
Thanks for the quick response. Your proposed changes sound good to me.

Regards
Suresh

----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
To: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Cc: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, General Area Review Team <[email-masked]>
Sent: 12/4/2013 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-04.txt

randy