Subject: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-04

From: Matt Joras via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:38:48 -0700

Reviewer: Matt Joras
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-??
Reviewer: Matt Joras
Review Date: 2022-03-16
IETF LC End Date: 2022-03-18
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Nits/editorial comments:
2.  The Bottom Line

This choice of idiom for a section title feels a bit weird. I understand what's
trying to be conveyed but I have to imagine there's a way to do it without
relying on an idiom.

   That the RPKI does not authenticate real-world identity is a feature,
   not a bug.  If it tried to do so, aside from the liability, it would
   end in a world of complexity with no proof of termination, as X.400
   learned.

Again, "is a feature, not a bug" feels gratuitous, I would consider simply
stating a fact (e.g. "RPKI does not authenticate real-world identities. This
was a deliberate choice in its design") rather than relying on this expression.

   If it tried to do so, aside from the liability, it would
   end in a world of complexity with no proof of termination, as X.400
   learned.
What "liability" exactly is this referring to? Referencing X.400 in this way
without an actual reference feels wrong. Similar to above, "world of
complexity", is another expression that feels out of place in this document
when a more straightforward statement on complexity would do.