>> Perhaps " Names for IANA and RIRs will be meaningless directory
>> distinguished ."
> We can add some more text to make such this is unambiguous.
we are consciously not proscribing 'meaningful' names for other IRs?
randy
___
sidr mailing list
sid
> I don't think this is a CP topic, because we're recommending a
> frequency of RP accesses to the repository.
point taken. this makes sense.
> The CP could have addressed the complimentary topic of the frequency
> of CRL and cert publication, but Andrei convinced us that this should
> be left t
At 10:56 PM -0700 10/28/09, Terry Manderson wrote:
Oppose.
the following, I think, needs attention.
* Section 4.3 Access Protocols
" Current efforts to implement a repository system use RSYNC [14] as
the single access protocol. RSYNC, as used in this implementation,
provides all of the
At 8:52 PM -0700 10/28/09, Terry Manderson wrote:
Oppose.
Although opposition is based on a small number of nits:
* Section 1.7, page 11. "RPKI signed Object" ... "declared to be such by a
standards track RFC issued by the SIDR WG"
Over time, the SIDR WG may not exist, or the name could change
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
If this document were being last called, then the question would be
significantly more complicated. But we are only at WG adoption, as
a starting point for work on a topic.
HOWEVER: we have a technically similar draft that has been proposed
for WG
At 7:09 AM +0900 10/30/09, Randy Bush wrote:
> 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 s
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, Robert Loomans wrote:
Additionally, I'd like to see a clear statement as to what this draft
says for which the existing draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation is insufficient.
I'll second this portion of Rob's note: I'd like some help
understanding the differences in technical su
General comment:
The US Patent office procedures are such that there is a delay between
filing and public disclosure of applications. That may be applicable here.
the IETF procedures specifically ask folks to tell us about such patent
applications, if they think they apply. However, we under
