[sidr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6485 (3162)

2012-03-23 Thread RFC Errata System
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

Re: [sidr] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6485 (3162)

2012-03-23 Thread Danny Rios
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

Re: [sidr] additional interim meetings

2012-03-23 Thread Tim Bruijnzeels
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

Re: [sidr] Signed vs unsgned and bgp best path decision

2012-03-23 Thread Robert Raszuk
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

Re: [sidr] Signed vs unsgned and bgp best path decision

2012-03-23 Thread Christopher Morrow
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

Re: [sidr] Signed vs unsgned and bgp best path decision

2012-03-23 Thread Robert Raszuk
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 '

Re: [sidr] Signed vs unsgned and bgp best path decision

2012-03-23 Thread Christopher Morrow
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

Re: [sidr] additional interim meetings

2012-03-23 Thread Henk Uijterwaal
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

Re: [sidr] additional interim meetings

2012-03-23 Thread George, Wes
> -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

Re: [sidr] additional interim meetings

2012-03-23 Thread George, Wes
> >> 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

Re: [sidr] additional interim meetings

2012-03-23 Thread George, Wes
> 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

[sidr] sidr meetings, Monday and Wednesday

2012-03-23 Thread Murphy, Sandra
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

[sidr] get slides to chairs early

2012-03-23 Thread Murphy, Sandra
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

Re: [sidr] sidr meetings, Monday and Wednesday

2012-03-23 Thread Randy Bush
> 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