Chairs,
The authors of draft-manderson-sidr-usecases-01.txt would like to request
that this ID be adopted as a WG item.
We acknowledge that there is a lot of work yet to be done on this document
however we believe that the areas to be completed should come at the
direction of the work group based
Ross,
On Oct 29, 2009, at 12:50 AM, Ross Callon wrote:
...
Thus I don't think that it is true that "an Informative document,
strictly speaking, can't conflict with a Standards Track document".
Makes sense; I shouldn't have said otherwise.
Let me try a different tack and simply ask why draft-
Randy Bush wrote:
folk going down this rathole might consider two things
rpki-rtr suggests that the number of global fetchers will be radically
lest than the number of global asns
there might be ca chain depth of 3-6 for which a 24 hour cycle would
mean a three day delay, making operato
> Randy, could you elaborate in which case does this transitive property
> apply, that makes something longer to propagate on a deeper hierarchy? Is it
> rekey, re-issue, revocation, or some kind or relying party check?
as ggm said, probably better than i can, a week or two after philly.
if we
sorry. late here.
> as ggm said, probably better than i can, a week or two after philly.
>
> if we have a parent-child chain of length L and each runs as a batch at
> some time interval T, then the mean time to propagate is (T/2)*(N-1)
s/N/L/
randy
_
Randy Bush wrote:
Randy, could you elaborate in which case does this transitive property
apply, that makes something longer to propagate on a deeper hierarchy? Is it
rekey, re-issue, revocation, or some kind or relying party check?
as ggm said, probably better than i can, a week or two after p
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Byron Ellacott wrote:
Randy,
On 28/10/2009, at 11:30 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
naming of actors in this document still assumes that ISPs are the
children. children might be RIRs (parent IANA), or end sites (parent
ISPs or owning non-end user sites (e.g. business subsidiari
My apologies - in watching the discussion about this draft I missed the
fact that I did not issue the last call. coming right up.
--Sandy
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Byron Ellacott wrote:
Sandy, with your WG chair hat on, could you please issue a WG Last Call on
the following document:
draft-ietf
This WG chair has received a Working Group Last Call request from an
author of
A Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates
draft-ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning-05.txt
which has an intended status of Standard Track.
All versions, past and present, are available at
> I believe the document needs to have the 3 hour time cycle removed,
> and some form of operational guidelines placed in a distinct document
> (whether 3 hours, or some other time, is up to that document)
i suspect it belongs in the CP, but am not sure.
randy
> That is only true if the thing you're propagating has to travel hop by
> hop to the bottom of the hierarchy. So the question still stands: what
> is this "thing" that you think propagates slowly, and why does it have
> to propagate hop by hop?
incorrect or missing cert high in chain which needs
On 30/10/2009, at 12:50 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Byron Ellacott wrote:
On 28/10/2009, at 11:30 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
naming of actors in this document still assumes that ISPs are the
children. children might be RIRs (parent IANA), or end sites
(parent
ISPs or owning
> Would a global replace of "ISP" with "subject" and "IR" with "issuer"
> be a sufficient resolution of this discussion?
makes sense to me, especially in the two level case. when you get to
three or more, you may want grandchild/grandparent etc.
the key point is that it is turtles all the way
Oppose..
Firstly, my initial observation is that the 'XML in ANS1 in CMS (signed)'
transported in mutually validated and authenticated(*) HTTPS/TLS sessions
appears somewhat weighty to cover MiTM/Repla given other parts of the entire
RPKI system don't seem to have been given the same attention and
I feel unable to say either way at present.
The IPR disclosure at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1028/
highlights the US Patent Application Serial No. 12/243,767.
In searching for this, at the USPTO I cannot find any relevant documents
with that serial.
I did try searching for "Cisco" as the n
Terry Manderson wrote:
> I feel unable to say either way at present.
>
...
>
> A direct link to the Patent Application would be appreciated!
Ditto. I'm reluctant to take any stance on this draft without more
information on what the patent claims.
Additionally, I'd like to see a clear statement
Randy Bush wrote:
>> draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-03.txt
>
> i object to last call on this. there is a conflicting draft, and one
> not by a wg co-chair.
As I understand it the WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation should be
evaluated on the draft's own merits:
If there are specific conflic
17 matches
Mail list logo
