> On Nov 5, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Karen Seo wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I think the authors have brought up some pertinent issues which have helped
> inspire other work which subsumes them. So I thank them but agree that it
> seems appropriate to drop this draft since those issues are now being covered
> in other documents and those documents have additional detail. Randy's I-D
> discusses INR transfers. Steve's draft on adverse action provides a detailed
> analysis of the "operational fragility" of the RPKI in the face of attacks
> and errors. So, if the adverse actions draft is adopted by the WG, we (the
> WG) could use the requirements stemming from these two IDs as the basis for a
> solution(s) document. Just personal preference, but I also find having one
> document per topic/issue (at least when they're as complex as is the case
> with the threat analysis) easier to follow and would also like to separate
> defining of issues and their requirements from describing the solution.
If I’m reading your argument correctly, you’re saying that
validation-reconsidered is not necessary because Kent’s adverse actions draft
provides a solution.
Except that it doesn’t. Validation reconsidered stops the harm before it
happens, where as the adverse actions draft says two things: 1) monitor and fix
the harm after it has happened, and 2) RPs should be smarter. Setting aside the
hand-waving and lack of a concrete solution, these are not comparable proposals.
-andy
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
