Andy Newton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-09: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Andy Newton, ART AD, comments for draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-09 CC @anewton1998 * line numbers: - https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-grow-nrtm-v4-09.txt&submitcheck=True * comment syntax: - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md * "Handling Ballot Positions": - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ ## Thanks to the Reviewers Thanks to Claudio Allocchio for the ARTART review. And thanks to the authors and working group for addressing the points in his review. ## Comments Overall, this is a well written document. I only have some non-blocking comments. ### Two database suggestions 314 databases are published from one instance. For example, a mirror 315 server publishing NRTMv4 for RIPE and RIPE-NONAUTH, will generate two Would "RIPE and RIPE-NONAUTH (two separate IRR databases)" make it clearer to the reader that RIPE and RIPE-NOAUTH refer to separate databases? ### Non-normative RECOMMENDEDs 416 ... It is RECOMMENDED to 417 modify objects in such a way that this change is evident to humans 418 reading the object text, for example, by adding remark lines or 419 comments. Without a specific action to take, is this RECOMMENDED normative? Can the advice to add remarks or comments be made THE action to take? 934 It is RECOMMENDED for mirror clients to be flexible where possible 935 and reasonable when applying their own validation rules to IRR 936 objects retrieved from mirror servers. For example, a route object This is good advice, but it is unclear what action is to be taken to be flexible. I think this should be a non-normative "recommended". ### About Once a Year 982 It is RECOMMENDED that IRR Database operators rotate the signing key 983 on their mirror server about once per year. .... The "about" leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Can a range be specified, such as between 8 months and 16 months? ### Consider Media Types 715 If the snapshot or delta file was compressed with GZIP, the 716 filename MUST end in ".gz", ... Has the working group considered using media types to describe the type of content in the files, instead of relying on file name suffixes? That might offer some flexibility for switching to different compression types, etc..., in the future. ## Nits ### Representing or Storing 116 The Internet Routing Registry (IRR) consists of several IRR 117 Databases, each storing objects in the Routing Policy Specification 118 Language (RPSL) [RFC2622]. .... I know this is a nit, but I think the objects are "respresented using RPSL", where storage could be done by any means... such as a denormalized SQL db. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
