I am also in favour of pursuing this draft. I do see a benefit in
signing RPSL objects.
I understand the argument of Randy: with the keys in the RPKI one can
sign anything such as bank transactions, and indeed that doesn't mean we
have to do so. But RPSL objects are close to the practice of
Speaking as working group chair:
I can't be certain that this indicates a promise to modify the draft or not.
Roque, Andy, could you comment?
If so, a new version is needed and I'll say so on the list.
If not, I'll have to ask for resolution on list.
Speaking as regular ol' member (and a bit
Wouldn't it be better to note that: As an update to RFC6487, this document
broadens the class of certificates that conform to the RPKI profile by
explicitly including within the profile those certificates that contain a
policy qualifier as described here.
Geoff
On 24/08/2013, at 4:09 AM,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Stephen Kent k...@bbn.com wrote:
Chris,
I agree with several of the folks who commented about the LTAMv2
presentation and your call for comments.
We need to provide an updated description of the problems we are trying to
address, and details of how we
