Subject: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir telechat review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity

From: Martin Vigoureux <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:22:09 +0200

Reviewer: Martin Vigoureux
Review result: Ready

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related 
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and 
sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide 
assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it 
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF 
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through 
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity
Reviewer: Martin Vigoureux
Review Date: 2022-04-13
Telechat Date: 2022-04-14
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

No major issues found. This document is ready for publication.

Comments:

The document sometimes uses "owner" when referring to the entity which 
has the INRs. I wonder whether this is intentional, and if not, whether 
using "holder" (as done in other places of the document) would be more 
appropriate.

    The RPKI's strong authority
    over ownership of INRs has misled some people toward a desire to use
    RPKI private keys to sign arbitrary documents attesting that the INR
    'owner' of those resources has attested to the authenticity of the
    document content.
I found the double use of attesting/has attested confusing, but that may 
only be me parsing this incorrectly.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:53:28 -0700

thanks martin.  appreciated.

i was hacking s/owner/holder/g. and stalled at the resulting word
"holdership."

randy, still pretending to think