Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-10: 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 to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for adding text into the document that placates my DISCUSS concerns until others look to implement (and use in anger) this in the wild. I'm going to leave a part of my original thoughts on this document here for future reflection: "I get the sense that many of the ramifications for this validation change are yet to be discovered. It worries me that from the shepherd writeup "The existing CA/RP code implementations will support this once published." What experiments have been done to identify any gaps and assumptions?" And further add that the RPKI is starting to appear, in my eyes, exceptionally fragile when faced with operational realities and also quasi-political issues surrounding trust anchors. Without doubt the underpinnings of routing security and integrity is hard, no surprise that this effort (as one of many that has preceded it) also struggles. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
