[sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-07: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-07: 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

[sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: 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

Re: [sidr] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Rob, > On 2 Mar 2017, at 13:42, Rob Austein <s...@hactrn.net> wrote: > > At Thu, 02 Mar 2017 03:04:24 -0800, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >> >> --

[sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-11: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-publication-11: 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

[sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: 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

[sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: 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

Re: [sidr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

I don't feel strongly about this either way, but... > On 9 Feb 2017, at 21:39, Rob Austein wrote: > > At Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:03:32 -0500, Alissa Cooper wrote: On Jan 19, 2017, at 9:34 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:

Re: [sidr] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Rob, > On 31 Jan 2017, at 00:13, Rob Austein <s...@hactrn.net> wrote: > > [Sorry for delay, was out for a while with a nasty flu, still catching up.] > > At Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:56:17 -0800,

[sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-06: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-06: 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

[sidr] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: Discuss 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

Re: [sidr] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21: (with COMMENT)

Hi Sriram, > On 11 Jan 2017, at 20:17, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) > <kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov> wrote: > > Hi Alexey, > > My comment in line below. > >> From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:aamelni...@fastmail.fm] >> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 4:

Re: [sidr] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21: (with COMMENT)

> On 5 Jan 2017, at 03:19, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > >> On 01/04/2017 09:38 AM, Sean Turner wrote: >> On Jan 4, 2017, at 05:09, Randy Bush wrote: +1 to the comment from Suresh about order. I though that something like what he

[sidr] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21: Yes 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

Re: [sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: (with COMMENT)

> On 10 Dec 2016, at 12:40, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > >> On Dec 10, 2016, at 06:50, Alexey Melnikov <aamelni...@fastmail.fm> wrote: >> >> Maybe I missed it, but I don't think the document is clear on why new >> algorithms are needed. Is thi

[sidr] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-16: 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

[sidr] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-11: Discuss 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

Re: [sidr] some comments on draft-ietf-sidr-cps-02

Hi Stephen, On 07/10/2013 16:44, Stephen Kent wrote: 3.1.2 of 6484 says that the CA SHOULD NOT use meaningful names, which leaves the CA some leeway.3.1.2 in the CPS draft says The name of the subscriber will not be meaningful , which is less flexible.OK, so this is a template that the CAs

[sidr] Acceptance call for draft-george-sidr-as-migration-01.txt

On behalf of SIDR chairs (Chris and myself, as Sandy is a co-author) I am starting 2 weeks WG acceptance call onthis document, ending on June 17th. Please send your comments, positive or negative to the mailing list or directly to WG chairs. Thank you, Alexey

[sidr] Results of acceptance call on draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting-02 in December 2012

Hi, I am sorry I procrastinated for so long to close the acceptance call. Below are the questions I've asked on the mailing list: 1) Is the problem described/solved by draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting-02 actually a problem that the WG needs to address? (Answer: yes or no. Additional information

Re: [sidr] wg adoption call for draft-rogaglia-sidr-multiple-publication-points

On 12/03/2013 17:54, Murphy, Sandra wrote: The authors of draft-rogaglia-sidr-multiple-publication-points have requested wg adoption. See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rogaglia-sidr-multiple-publication-points Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg adopting this as

[sidr] Results of the acceptance call for draft-newton-sidr-policy-qualifiers-01

Multiple people voiced their support for adopting the document, a couple of people provided specific comments. Nobody voiced their opposition to adopting the document. WG participants have spoken, so the document is now adopted by the WG. Best Regards, Alexey, as a co-chair.

[sidr] Acceptance call for draft-newton-sidr-policy-qualifiers-01

On 11/03/2013 13:54, Andy Newton wrote: On 3/11/13 9:48 AM, Matthew Lepinski mlepinski.i...@gmail.com wrote: This seems like quite a reasonable document, and I do not anticipate that it would take a lot of working group cycles to process this document. I would, therefore, support adoption of

Re: [sidr] Poll: WG acceptance of draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting-02

On 12/12/2012 19:56, Alexey Melnikov wrote: Dear WG participants, I would like to initiate 2+ weeks poll (ending on December 31st 2012) Although the poll has ended last year, there was a suggestion to extend it. If you want to express your opinion, but haven't done so yet, can you please do

[sidr] Poll: WG acceptance of draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting-02

Dear WG participants, I would like to initiate 2+ weeks poll (ending on December 31st 2012) regarding acceptance of draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting-02.txt. Please reply to questions listed below. Send your replies to the mailing list or directly to WG chairs sidr-cha...@tools.ietf.org. I would

Re: [sidr] Poll: WG acceptance of draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting-02

On 12/12/2012 19:56, Alexey Melnikov wrote: Dear WG participants, I would like to initiate 2+ weeks poll (ending on December 31st 2012) BTW, if people think that this date should be postponed due to holiday season, that would be fine with me. regarding acceptance of draft-ymbk-rpki

[sidr] Reboot: questions regarding WG acceptance of draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting-02

Hi, Sorry for procrastinating on this for so long. Here are questions I would like to ask WG participants. At this point I would like to ask people to review the questions and let me know if you think they are contradictory. If they are clear, I will poll the WG early next week. Comments on

Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting

On 08/11/2012 05:53, Byron Ellacott wrote: Hi Chris, On 08/11/2012, at 3:04 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Byron Ellacott b...@apnic.net wrote: Hi Chris, When did the WG reach consensus on adopting this draft? when it spent ~50

[sidr] Reviews of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib-02.txt needed

Hi WG, Can I please get at least 3 people (other than editors or WG chairs) that can reply that they looked at the document and it looks Ok? Saying that there are some issues with the document is also fine. I can't really send it to our responsible AD without any reviews. Thanks, Alexey

[sidr] draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility submitted to AD for publication

I've reviewed the mailing list discussion a year ago and I think that comments raised on the mailing list were addressed. There was an alternative procedure suggested on the mailing list, but I haven't see any support for it from others on the mailing list. So I wrote the shepherding write-up

Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib-00

On 17/08/2012 18:02, Murphy, Sandra wrote: The authors believe that the draft is ready for publication. This announces a two week last call. The WGLC will end 31 Aug 2012. Please report to the list whether you support publication of this draft or not. The draft is available at

[sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting

Hi, On behalf of SIDR WG chairs I would like to initiate 2 weeks acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting starting from today, August 4th. Please send your positive or negative feedback to the mailing list or directly to chairs. Thank you, Alexey

Re: [sidr] Date and type of the next (end of June/early July) interim

Hi Randy, On 26 May 2012, at 08:47, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: alexey, The WG needs to decide about the date and type of the next interim (after June 6th). The earlier proposal stated June 29th. Are people happy with this date or do they want to propose an alternative? i doubt i

[sidr] Date and type of the next (end of June/early July) interim

Dear WG members, The WG needs to decide about the date and type of the next interim (after June 6th). The earlier proposal stated June 29th. Are people happy with this date or do they want to propose an alternative? Note that we are more flexible this time, because this is not tied to any

Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun

Hi WG, On 22 May 2012, at 07:08, Murphy, Sandra sandra.mur...@sparta.com wrote: An eagle eye reader points out that the agenda deadline before the June meeting is in May, not June, and the day after tomorrow is still May, not June. Still. Get any requests for topics in asap. Agenda

Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun

Hi, On 22 May 2012, at 08:21, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote: On May 22, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: Hi WG, On 22 May 2012, at 07:08, Murphy, Sandra sandra.mur...@sparta.com wrote: An eagle eye reader points out that the agenda deadline before the June meeting

[sidr] Conclusion: next SIDR interim is June 6th

After reviewing feedback from the WG and discussing it with my co-chairs and our ADs, it doesn't seem we have strong enough consensus to change to June 3rd. In addition June 2-5 is a long weekend in UK this year, so blame me for not willing to spend one of these days on the phone ;-). So,