Use Cases and Interpretations of Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Objects for Issuers and Relying Parties
RFC 6907

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Stewart Bryant) Yes

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Sean Turner) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2012-12-18 for -05)
No email
send info
- 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?

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2012-12-20 for -05)
No email
send info
  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.

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2012-12-18 for -05)
No email
send info
-- 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The first sentence doesn't belong in an RFC: it'll be outdated soon after the RFC is published.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.

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection