Use Cases and Interpretations of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects for Issuers and Relying Parties
draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-06
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 IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -05)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-12-18 for -05)
Unknown
-- 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 -- Section 4 -- The first sentence doesn't belong in an RFC: it'll be outdated soon after the RFC is published.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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-12-20 for -05)
Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-12-18 for -05)
Unknown
- 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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown