Subject: [sidr] Comments on draft-ietf-sidr-cps-01.txt

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:29:20 +0100

Sorry for late comments. In general I think the document is in a good 
shape. But a few minor things below:

In Sections 4.6.5-4.6.7 and I think elsewhere: references to 4.4.X 
should be references to 4.3.X. At least the section 4.4.3 doesn't exist, 
so references to it should be fixed.

In Sections 4.7.7/4.8.7 - the reference to 4.4.3 is invalid. 4.3.3 again?

In Section 4.10: is not supporting OCSP/SCVP is truly a requirement?

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:47:01 -0400

Alexy,

Thanks for the feedback.

On 6/25/13 12:29 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> should be references to 4.3.X. At least the section 4.4.3 doesn't 
> exist, so references to it should be fixed.
we probably are off here due to edit cycles. we'll fix these references.
> In Sections 4.7.7/4.8.7 - the reference to 4.4.3 is invalid. 4.3.3 again?
yep, probably so.
> In Section 4.10: is not supporting OCSP/SCVP is truly a requirement?
yes. OCSP and SCVP are designed to be efficient to learn the revocation
status of an individual cert. but, in the RPKI, each RP needs to know the
revocation status of ALL certs. so one does not want a CA offering OCSP
or SCVP as an alternative to publishing CRLs.

Steve