The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6485,
"The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for Use in the Resource Public Key
Infrastructure (RPKI)".
--
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6485&eid
I'm not precisely sure how this works as it is my first time reporting
errata regarding an RFC, but do believe my claim warrants verification.
Please get back to me on the process and possible verification.
Thank you for your time (all),
Danny Rios
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:57 AM, RFC Errata Syst
Hi,
On 22 Mar 2012, at 17:07, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
> .
> Interim meetings are not supported by the secretariat, so for face-face
> meetings we have to rely on volunteer organizations or hosts. That will mean
> that some meetings will have no hosts (virtual) or will have hosts but be
> spa
Chris,
I am talking about inter-domain policy not intra-domain. "ACHTUNG" may
not help as folks around seem very reluctant to share their internal
policies outside.
When compared to what is today I don't think folks are mandated by any
RFC to make a choice between two attributes which carry
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I am talking about inter-domain policy not intra-domain. "ACHTUNG" may not
> help as folks around seem very reluctant to share their internal policies
> outside.
sure, interdomain policies today differ between domains... nothing
h
When compared to what is today I don't think folks are mandated by any RFC
to make a choice between two attributes which carry the same metric to
decide which one should win on a per AS basis.
they are not, and in the future the 'mandate' is I believe a 'SHOULD',
not a 'MUST' so not really a '
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
>>> When compared to what is today I don't think folks are mandated by any
>>> RFC
>>> to make a choice between two attributes which carry the same metric to
>>> decide which one should win on a per AS basis.
>>
>>
>> they are not, and in the
Hi Tim,
> I share people's concerns about additional travel, so I would prefer to go
> for 2
> or even 3 slots at the upcoming IETFs instead. I don't know what IETF policy
> is
> on this, but it's quite clear that there is enough on the agenda that needs
> f2f.
The IETF has a limited number of
> -Original Message-
> From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Murphy, Sandra
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:08 PM
> To: sidr@ietf.org
> Subject: [sidr] additional interim meetings
>
> Interim meetings would be face-face meetings co-located with venue
> >> Are there enough central locations to where the folks who want to
> >> participate to make more network connected office conversations
> >> workable? (sunnyvale/pao/etc + washington + london + ???)
>
> is the idea of showing up in 3 locations close to a majority of
> participants and particip
> From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk
> Uijterwaal
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 9:01 AM
> To: sidr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [sidr] additional interim meetings
>
>
> The IETF has a limited number of slots (150 or so) and about as many working
> groups. That
The Secretariat confirmed today that the sidr meeting will have the slot on
Monday 1300-1500 vacated by EAI.
The IETF agenda site is not yet updated with this information, as they must
also do a room change.
Brian Dickson has agreed to move his presentation to the Monday time slot.
Unfortunat
Slides need to be uploaded to the meetings materials site before the meeting.
The chair laptops will be busy, so if you walk in with a memory stick, you may
be speaking to a blank screen.
So presenters on Wednesday, please have your slides to the wg chairs by
midnight Wed morning IETF local ti
> Unfortunately I got word today (Friday) from another author that there
> was no way to move his presentation to Monday. Therefore, I am
> checking with other authors to see what presentations can move to
> Monday.
i think pfx-validate is not well understood. i did send some slides
around, but
14 matches
Mail list logo