Subject: [sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 06:31:44 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- (In response to Ben's comment:) Assuming this change
only represents a change to the  means to get more
anchor information, after you have the public key, and
that any additional into is protected with the key I
don't think there's any real security change here - this
is basically like having an anycast address for the host
in the current URI (from the security POV). If that's
wrong please do correct me.

- tbh, I don't find the new text describing the syntax
to be very clear. It says: "...where the URI section is
comprised of one of more of the ordered sequence of:    
   1.1)  an rsync URI [RFC5781],    
   1.2)  a <CRLF> or <LF> line break."

Exactly what is supposed to separate the URIs? 

- the example should show >1 URL really

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 11:40:05 -0500

> wrong please do correct me.

I believe you are right, and that addresses my concern.

Thanks!

Ben.