Chris,
sure... I think sriram may cover this in his document about the decision
processes which lead to where we are today.
I think, one way to look at the document and situation is this:
o community folks for each RIR asked for RPKI to be supported
o RIR folk put in some development $$/effo
Chris,
On September 7, 2016 at 4:42:21 AM, Christopher Morrow
(morrowc.li...@gmail.com) wrote:
I don't disagree that running a CA is 'simple'... I think though that if the
RIRs are in a position where there won't be a single root above them 'for a
while' (it's been ~10 yrs at this point) but th
On Oct 7, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> saturday november 6, we will be doing an rpki testbed workshop and
> hackathon in the ietf terminal room. bring unix/macosx/linux laptop,
> or access to a system on which you can do the install and configure.
For public information, what code will y
Sandy,
On Sep 17, 2009, at 5:59 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
I recognize that there is an fear that this system somehow puts ISPs
under someone's control. I would answer that there is not any more
control than is already the case.
I suppose it depends on what people are going to do with RPKI.
Curtis,
On Sep 13, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
Maybe they'd be OK with this because they are already dependent on DNS
where their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. in the
[hierarchy] potentially could, [screw up].
The DNS model is somewhat different than what I und
Hi,
I choose not to get into discussions of conflict of interest aspect of
this thread as I prefer to remain naive and assume folks are doing
what they believe is in the best interests of the Internet over the
long term. However, I'd like to use a footnote from Randy's note to
ask what I
On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Stephen Kent wrote:
At 2:37 PM -0500 12/12/08, Andrew Newton wrote:
The double allocation conflict can originate from anywhere in the
tree, even from the root, right? So this conflict is only
tangential to the nature of the trust anchor(s)?
Yes, that's right.
Geoff,
[No hat. Really. Personal opinion only]
On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
From time to time the IETF heads into areas where its role
intersects with the roles of other bodies,
Yep. Like (say) IPv6 and IPSEC requirements and the interaction with
national crypto laws
John,
On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:33 PM, John Curran wrote:
As I read the draft, the IANA's role as a trust anchor is no different
than any of the RIR's (i.e. each acting as their own trust anchor for
their own RPKI hierarchy):
Yes, that is my interpretation of the draft as well.
As written, the IA
[No hat]
Hi,
I have been avoiding raising any issues on the res-cert draft for
political reasons, however I believe the draft is flawed in a non-
political way in that section 6.3 makes reference to IANA acting in
some capacity as a trust anchor yet the IANA Considerations section
states:
10 matches
Mail list logo
