This document reflects the feedback from Prague both in the WG and around
the halls, being:
1) Use cases? who wants this.
2) Privacy, bad idea to geotag ghostbusters, put in coordinates for just
what you need.
3) Currency and 'legal', RPKI repository operator doesn't want to be
responsible for s
Tim Bruijnzeels (lead RPKI software engineer and regular IETF attendee) should
definitely be included. He is cc'd.
Cheers,
Alex
On 9 Jun 2011, at 21:22, Sandra Murphy wrote:
> Transfer of resources (both intra-RIR and inter-RIR) has been a hot topic
> recently in the RIRs. The RIRs have said
Transfer of resources (both intra-RIR and inter-RIR) has been a hot topic
recently in the RIRs. The RIRs have said that they are working on the
process of accomplishing resource transfers wrt the RPKI.
I believe the work of the SIDR WG would be aided by a better understanding
of how the RIRs
Dear Pradosh Mohapatra, John Scudder, David Ward, Randy Bush, Rob Austein:
An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "BGP Prefix
Origin Validation" (draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate) was submitted to the IETF
Secretariat on 2011-06-02 and has been posted on the "IETF Page of In
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : A Protocol for Provisioning Resource Certificates
Author(s) : Geoff Huston
> The penny finally dropped and I realized there is a better reason why
> SSH isn't desirable, and neither is TLS or any other solution layered
> on top of TCP: they don't protect the transport. Recall why TCP-MD5
> was introduced (from RFC 2385):
>
>The primary motivation for this option is
> (1) Retract the iana-objects draft, update it wrt prefix status changes,
> and send it back to the RFC-Editor to wait until and if the IESG approves
> the 6to4-to-historic draft.
>
> (2) Let the iana-objects draft progress, begin work on a -bis immediately.
> (The -bis could introduce a regis
