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

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 11:32:33 -0700

Alissa Cooper 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it would be helpful to explain in Section 1 what the purpose is
for having multiple URIs in a TAL. It is implied in Section 2.2 but would
help to make it explicit.

Regarding this text in 2.2:

"In order to operational increase resilience, it is RECOMMENDED that the
   domain name parts of each of these URIs resolve to distinct IP
   addresses that are used by a diverse set of repository publication
   points, and these IP addresses be included in distinct Route
   Origination Authorizations (ROAs) objects signed by different CAs.”

I think it would be good to point out why one might construct a TAL with
URIs that do resolve to the same address in the exceptional case. Alvaro
pointed out one case to me offline (diversity of DNS resolution despite
the address sharing), but it might help to make the exception case
explicit.