On Aug 5, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Yes I would like the wg to consider adoption of:
>>
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles/
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-algs/
>
> they seem well within the scope of the wg's work.
> Yes I would like the wg to consider adoption of:
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles/
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-algs/
they seem well within the scope of the wg's work. i support adoption.
randy, who confesses to have skimm
On 8/5/11 2:11 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Sean Turner wrote:
On 8/3/11 8:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
The intention was to focus on the use case for the proposed changes
(BGPSEC certs).
what is a "BGPSEC cert?"
What Mark and I are currently proposing in
draft-turner-sidr-bg
as co-editor I support to work on this.
My current work seems to indicate that both drafts may even merge into one.
But we'll leat the WG speak up once I am done with the edits.
Bert
On 8/5/11 8:25 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
The working group has been requested to adopt
draft-ymbk-bgp-origin
The working group has been requested to adopt
draft-ymbk-bgp-origin-validation-mib
draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib
as working group drafts.
As these are drafts are so similar in topic, I am running the adoption
call for both simultaneously.
Please respond to the list with your opinio
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Sean Turner wrote:
On 8/3/11 8:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
The intention was to focus on the use case for the proposed changes
(BGPSEC certs).
what is a "BGPSEC cert?"
What Mark and I are currently proposing in
draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles is that a BGPSEC certi
Support.
On Jul 13, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>
> The chairs have received a request from the authors for a WG Last Call for
> "The RPKI Ghostbusters Record", draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-06.
>
> The document and the draft version history are available at:
> http://tools.ietf.or
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
> i would request the wg adopt
>
> draft-ymbk-bgp-origin-validation-mib
> draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib
>
I support the adoption, as well.
Cheers
matthias
--
Matthias Waehlisch
. Freie Universitaet Berlin, Inst. fuer Informatik, AG CST
.
>> yes, they are works in progress.
> Yes they are
bert is slaving away as we type
randy
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
On Aug 4, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i would request the wg adopt
>
>draft-ymbk-bgp-origin-validation-mib
Support adoption.
>draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib
Support adoption.
>
> yes, they are works in progress. but that's what a wg is for.
Yes they are, and, yes it i
At Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:17:59 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> i would request the wg adopt
>
> draft-ymbk-bgp-origin-validation-mib
> draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib
Support.
> yes, they are works in progress. but that's what a wg is for.
Just so.
I support both too.
spt
On 8/4/11 7:38 PM, Roque Gagliano wrote:
I support adoption of both documents with one comment:
On "draft-ymbk-bgp-origin-validation-mib", I would not use the word "ROATable".
The router does not interact with ROAs and I believe it is confusing.
In "draft-ietf-sidr-pfx
Hi Bert,
The MIB module is not ready for WGLC, I agree on that.
Nothing personal to you Bert and I highly value your work and as we met
few times it is just awesome.
But when I write a draft I do try hard to make it useful. Then WG
adoption to will make it fine-tuned to be perfect and be a
Inline
On 8/5/11 8:39 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
Hi Bert,
Many thx for your comment .. I was not able to stay at the IETF till the SIDR
session.
If that is the case the draft-ymbk-bgp-origin-validation-mib is just completely not ready for adoption until it contains bare
minimum which will allo
14 matches
Mail list logo
