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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Matt, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document.

I think the editorial suggestions below make sense and hope the authors will consider them.

Lars


> On 2022-3-17, at 2:38, Matt Joras via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux