> I only partially agree. For three reasons: > > - My experience over the last 12 months of running invalid==deny in > production is that some implementors have managed to take every > ambiguity in the various rov-related RFCs and translate it into bugs or > fragile/hostile behavior. I think our lesson should be that even > obvious-seeming spec gaps ought to be filled in this area. > > - Operators using implementations of this draft will observe > behavioural differences between similar-seeming policy applied at > different attachment points. This document should help them understand > those differences. > > - We may very well see some implementations wind up with separate > policy knobs for "enable rpki-rov" and "enable rpki-rov-egress". Again, > operators will need a spec against which to validate that feature > behaviour if it is claiming RFC compliance. > ... > I'm not suggesting turning this into a use-case doc. But enough color > to make the mental link between real-world policy and protocol concepts > is necessary, imho. since we're not getting it clearly, so send a short paragraph or two randy -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
