[sidr] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please ref

Re: [sidr] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

> On Feb 14, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> why is there no associated error checking for the Max Length field in >> the IPvX PDUs > > it is assumed any error checking was done *before* they are sent to the > router. a major goal of this protocol is to relieve the router of any > lo

[sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

[sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please

[sidr] Terry Manderson's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: (with COMMENT)

Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please ref

Re: [sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

>>> - section 9: What's the background to removing the statement >>> that one of TCP-AO ssh etc SHOULD be used? What is the reality >>> of deployments here? I assume it is not TCP-AO anyway but does >>> TLS or SSH get used? >> >> TCP-AO never maaterialized. >> >> off-hand, i can not think of a wa

Re: [sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

On 16/02/17 00:28, Randy Bush wrote: >> - section 9: What's the background to removing the statement >> that one of TCP-AO ssh etc SHOULD be used? What is the reality >> of deployments here? I assume it is not TCP-AO anyway but does >> TLS or SSH get used? > > TCP-AO never maaterialized. > > of

Re: [sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

> - section 9: What's the background to removing the statement > that one of TCP-AO ssh etc SHOULD be used? What is the reality > of deployments here? I assume it is not TCP-AO anyway but does > TLS or SSH get used? TCP-AO never maaterialized. off-hand, i can not think of a way to measure who is

[sidr] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Plea

Re: [sidr] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with DISCUSS)

Thanks Rob! Yes, initially this document was marked to obsolete rfc6810, but at the same time it mandated the use of the previous version as part of the Protocol Version Negotiation. Given that it may take a while before caches and routers both implement this new version, we decided to settle

Re: [sidr] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with DISCUSS)

At Wed, 15 Feb 2017 08:06:17 -0800, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > This is a general discuss on the principle of using extension mechanisms >

[sidr] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with DISCUSS)

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please re

[sidr] Review of draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-05

Reviewer: Susan Hares Review result: Has Nits Rob, Tim, Oleg, Bryan: I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects

Re: [sidr] Alia Atlas' No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-08: (with COMMENT)

- Original Message - From: "Alia Atlas" To: "Rob Austein" Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 4:03 A > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Rob Austein wrote: > > > At Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:40:00 -0800, Alia Atlas wrote: > > > > > > ---