>> no need. this is object based security. rama and hanuman have tals and
>> validate. having every cache in the world hit the CAs is not gonna
>> scale.
> Yes, perhaps we need a different architecture and transport protocol.
measurement has shown that rsync is about as good as you're gonna do
We still need a minute taker for today's session.
Please do volunteer.
--Sandy, speaking as co-chair
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
Hi all,
I have already had some informal discussions about this and decided to write
our ideas up in a informational draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-validation-local-cache-00.txt
I will do a short talk on this during today's sidr session to explain the
backg
Hi,
On Nov 9, 2012, at 4:07 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> no need. this is object based security. rama and hanuman have tals and
>>> validate. having every cache in the world hit the CAs is not gonna
>>> scale.
>> Yes, perhaps we need a different architecture and transport protocol.
>
> measurem
Sandra -
Regarding http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/slides/slides-85-sidr-14.pdf to be
presentated
later today:
Page 10 -
> Potential Impact
>
> • Operators have said to me “I don’t want to run anything. I just want to
> click on a website somewhere”
>
> • There are already tools/sites that
wrt:
I'd like it made clear during the presentation that indeed a strict reading of
the current
ARIN RPA would disallow such applications, but as noted earlier in this list,
ARIN is
quite willing to provide waiver for such statistic, status, and summary uses.
If we
can find a way to safely pro
On 08/11/2012 05:53, Byron Ellacott wrote:
Hi Chris,
On 08/11/2012, at 3:04 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Byron Ellacott wrote:
Hi Chris,
When did the WG reach consensus on adopting this draft?
when it spent ~50 mesasages discussing it?
it seems that, even
Related to our presentation today, if you are curious about why we have
a lot of invalids:
IPv4
http://www.labs.lacnic.net/rpkitools/looking_glass/rest/invalid/cidr/0.0.0.0/0/
For v6 our app does not support to query all the invalids, but you can
check with something like:
http:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Alexey Melnikov
wrote:
> On 08/11/2012 05:53, Byron Ellacott wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> On 08/11/2012, at 3:04 PM, Christopher Morrow
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Byron Ellacott wrote:
>>>
Hi Chris,
When did the WG reach conse
Hi WG,
Can I please get at least 3 people (other than editors or WG chairs)
that can reply that they looked at the document and it looks Ok? Saying
that there are some issues with the document is also fine. I can't
really send it to our responsible AD without any reviews.
Thanks,
Alexey
Hi Alexey,
I read the document and have no objections.
Cheers
matthias
--
Matthias Waehlisch
. Freie Universitaet Berlin, Inst. fuer Informatik, AG CST
. Takustr. 9, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
.. mailto:waehli...@ieee.org .. http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/~waehl
:. Also: http://inet.cpt.haw-h
Brian,
Thanks for the clarification, very very useful.
Regards,
as
On 09/11/2012 11:42, Brian Dickson wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I'd like to note that in general, WG acceptance processes are a critical
> part of IETF processes.
>
> In particular, the WG consensus on adoption, is the one crit
I've looked at it, have no objections.
On 11/9/2012 11:43 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi WG,
> Can I please get at least 3 people (other than editors or WG chairs)
> that can reply that they looked at the document and it looks Ok? Saying
> that there are some issues with the document is also fine
On 11/9/12 11:15 AM, "Alexey Melnikov" wrote:
>I think WG chairs (collectively) dropped the ball here: 3 of us have
>discussed the acceptance call a couple of times. We would like to
>apologize for sending inconsistent messages.
>
>After talking to various people this week, it looks like the best
Hi Alexey,
I looked at this document and have no objections with it.
Anuja
-Original Message-
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexey
Melnikov
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 11:44 AM
To: sidr wg
Subject: [sidr] Reviews of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rt
> maybe? folk have to see a benefit to any of this in order for it to
> move into production use. if as a first step resource certification
> work gets me better filtering and/or more people filtering because
> more reliable filtering is possible, good.
>
> eventually though, people will realize
> There might be a #4, but I imagine what it is.
-- insert "can't" in the appropriate place. Fingers faster than brain
problem.
:-)
Russ
--
<><
riwh...@verisign.com
ru...@riw.us
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi
17 matches
Mail list logo
