Obviously, I also support this call for adoption, for the reasons George has
outlined here.
Geoff
On 29 Apr 2014, at 10:11 am, George Michaelson wrote:
> I would like to see the WG discuss validation. I think there are inherent
> risks in the current model, which could be avoided if we had
I would like to see the WG discuss validation. I think there are inherent
risks in the current model, which could be avoided if we had a more nuanced
understanding of the validity of any given resource under consideration.
So as a co-author of this draft its hardly surprising I support adoption,
b
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : Template for a Certification Practice Statement (CPS)
for the Resource PKI (RPKI)
Authors
I support the adoption of this draft, as it makes the operations of a CA less
problematic.
I also 100% disagree with Randy’s view that it adds complexity. To the
contrary, it lessens complexity, aids flexibility and decreases fragility.
-andy
On Apr 25, 2014, at 3:06 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Could you say please whether this means you support publication or you
>> do not?
>>
>>> from a running router
>>>
>>>policy-statement rpki {
>>>term valid {
>>>from {
>>>protocol bgp;
>>>
> Could you say please whether this means you support publication or you
> do not?
>
>> from a running router
>>
>>policy-statement rpki {
>>term valid {
>>from {
>>protocol bgp;
>>validation-database valid;
>> }
>>t
Could you say please whether this means you support publication or you do not?
--Sandy
On Apr 26, 2014, at 2:28 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> from a running router
>
>policy-statement rpki {
>term valid {
>from {
>protocol bgp;
>validation-data
