My company has instituted a strict limit to the size of our mailboxes. I am
changing my subscription to the ietf lists to sa...@tislabs.com. No change of
company, just email address.
So if you see mail from sa...@tislabs.com, don't be alarmed, it is still me.
(Actually has been me for a
Apologies to the authors. This was submitted during IETF week. Being a -00
draft, a request for approval was sent to the chairs, who missed it.
--Sandy, speaking as a wg co-chair
From: sidr [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org
Matt Lepinski took minutes for the SIDR session in the IETF etherpad.
I've uploaded a copy to the meeting materials site.
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/minutes/minutes-89-sidr
The etherpad site (temporary) is
http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-89-sidr?useMonospaceFont=true
group draft for RFC6810-bis
At Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:31:10 +, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
The chairs appoint Rob Austein and Randy Bush as co-editors of a
draft draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6810-bis-00.txt to revise RFC6810, which
they should submit at their earliest convenience.
Uploaded. Posting to drafts
The comment from me about to provide that new draft was a comment about a new
version of the router certs draft (draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles), so
your comment applies.
The minutes note your comment during the discussion with Rob suggesting the
need for more than one AS in the router
The router needs the router - AS mappings for the bgpsec path validation to
work, so the rpki-rtr protocol needs to provide that info to the routers. That
means a new rpki-rtr PDU needs to be provided. The chairs have decided this
need is clear and a new version of RFC6810 is needed with the
captured in the minutes:
Steve Kent: As an author, we can fix this
Answer: yes.
--Sandy
From: Murphy, Sandra
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 1:12 PM
To: Rob Austein
Cc: sidr@ietf.org; Randy Bush
Subject: RE: [sidr] Updates to rpki-rtr protocol (RFC
So the draft does two things - adds a new PDU and makes some changes to the
overall protocol function.
I would expect that adding a new PDU would be a new document, not a revision to
the protocol document. Would you agree?
Since you are changing the protocol function anyway, I can see the
exactly one to at least one might be
sufficient. I think that's substantive, not bureaucratic.
--Sandy
From: Randy Bush [ra...@psg.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 1:37 PM
To: Murphy, Sandra
Cc: Rob Austein; sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] Updates
George explained in the meeting on Tuesday (and Rob and Matt had noted on the
list long ago) that RFC6485 (*) and the CMS spec are not in sync wrt the
mandatory signing algorithm. He also noted that all implementations follow the
CMS spec.
The chairs have decided that this is something that
From: Murphy, Sandra
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7:18 PM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: jabber scribe; minutes taker; slides from presenters
And number your slides, too. Please.
--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
From: Murphy, Sandra
Sent
I think maybe the problem might be the following statement:
Every CA instance has a corresponding CRL and Manifest. The CRL contains
certificates which are revoked and the Manifest contains just Signed
Objects.
The manifest contains every signed object (except itself) that the CS
produces.
Slides that have been received have been uploaded.
(Notify chairs immediately if you think you've provided slides and the slides
have not appeared on the meeting materials site.)
Many of the presenters have not yet provided slides. IF YOU HAVE SLIDES, GET
THEM IN SOON!! Presentations not
03, 2014 12:41 PM
To: Murphy, Sandra
Cc: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] jabber scribe; minutes taker; slides from presenters
I can take notes to help produce the minutes for the SIDR meeting on Tuesday
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Murphy, Sandra
sandra.mur...@parsons.commailto:sandra.mur
There's an updated agenda with an additional topic and a reduction of one
topic's time slot size from twice what everyone else got to the same as
everyone else (especially given that the request had been for a few minutes
:-) ).
The agenda is full. Those presenters/speakers/ombudsgeeks
not an omnibudsgeek?
:-) will revise.
--Sandy
P.S. Thanks for avoiding the ietf ombudsman vs ombudsperson etc discussion
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
, speaking as one of the co-chairs
From: sidr [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Murphy, Sandra
[sandra.mur...@parsons.com]
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 2:47 PM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] working group adoption poll for draft-huston-sidr-rfc6490-bis
It would be most helpful to have the roles of jabber scribe and minutes taker
set before the meeting. If you are willing, please do speak up.
We can't proceed with the discussions and presentations without a the jabber
scribe and minutes taker identified. So if you want the meeting to
The agenda has been revised. It is copied below for ease of the reader.
The agenda is now full. Further additions are possible but not necessarily
accepted.
The requests for agenda time have not gone to the list in all cases and not to
all chairs in all cases. So if you made a request, you
And number your slides, too. Please.
--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
From: Murphy, Sandra
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:39 PM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: jabber scribe; minutes taker; slides from presenters
It would be most helpful to have
I have uploaded a draft agenda from the requests received so far. It is copied
below. This is a DRAFT. Changes are possible. The final agenda is not due
until 24 Feb.
There is still room on the agenda for topic discussion, if anyone has a topic
to suggest.
If the agenda is wrong (wrong
There are two meeting deadlines coming up soon:
2014-02-14 (Friday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts,
including -00) by UTC 23:59, upload using IETF ID Submission Tool.
2014-02-17 (Monday): Draft Working Group agendas due by UTC 23:59, upload using
IETF Meeting Materials
The final agenda is set.
SIDR meets TUESDAY, March 4, 2014, 0900-1130 GMT Tuesday Morning
Session I, room Balmoral.
--Sandy
From: IETF-Announce [ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of IETF Agenda
[age...@ietf.org]
Sent: Friday, February
The lta-use-cases draft was motivated as a way to start/guide discussion of the
Local Trust Anchor Management draft and the Suspenders draft.
The question is whether we need both efforts, or only one, and if so, which one.
So we need to discuss the use cases. And discuss the two drafts.
Local
We have about five weeks before the IETF 89 meeting in London. So it is time
to start considering the agenda.
If you wish to have some time on the agenda, please send a message to the list
or to the chairs and secretary (sidr-cha...@ietf.org).
Please give thought to topics that would benefit
Here are some of the important dates for the upcoming meeting you might want to
keep in mind.
Note in particular the deadline for submission of an internet-draft.
2014-01-31 (Friday): Preliminary agenda published for comment.
2014-02-03 (Monday): Cut-off date for requests to reschedule Working
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Randy Bush said:
There were four responses to this adoption call, all positive. But
four is not a strong indication of wg wishes here.
note that the wg meeting in berlin asked for a requirements draft
I hear you, and I heard the comments. But the wg is supposed to
(Speaking as regular ol' member)
as some of you know, I'm writing my master thesis about RPKI at
Deutsche Telekom (Rüdiger Volk). Especially I try to identify the
problems (attack, misconfiguration, ...) of using RPKI as a relying
party/resource owner and try to find ways to identify if such a
The draft draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying-04 has grown over time, mostly from the
author's energy, not wg discussion.
But this is an important and subtle issue.
The latest version was submitted 17 Dec. There's a section called Key
rollover which says only TBD.
Could the wg please look at this
No replies, so the author(s) should take the action they think best.
--Sandy, speaking as co-chair
From: sidr [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Murphy, Sandra
[sandra.mur...@parsons.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 7:52 PM
To: sidr@ietf.org
No replies, so the authors should proceed as suggested.
--Sandy, speaking as co-chair
From: sidr [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Murphy, Sandra
[sandra.mur...@parsons.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 8:05 PM
To: Roque Gagliano (rogaglia); sidr wg list
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Murphy, Sandra
[sandra.mur...@parsons.com]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 12:12 PM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] wg adoption call for draft-austein-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-00
The authors of draft-austein-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-00
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Murphy, Sandra
[sandra.mur...@parsons.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 8:25 AM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] a query to the wg regarding publication draft
Rob posed a question to the room during the meeting on Tue (Nov 5
The authors made a suggestion (see below) for a new course of action for the
draft draft-ietf-sidr-multiple-publication-points, splitting the draft into two
work items.
And there have been nearly two months of mostly silence on the point. (Thanks
to Steve and Arturo for their replies.).
If
We had two minutes takers, Peter Yee and Sriram Kotikalapudi. Their melded
notes (with thanks to Sriram for the melding) have been uploaded to the
proceedings site:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/minutes/minutes-88-sidr.
Each presentation has a summary followed by details of the QA for
Please consider the last call for NOMCOM feedback below.
This is an important part of IETF governance and process. Let your opinion be
heard.
--Sandy
From: wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org [wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of NomCom
Chair 2013
Rob posed a question to the room during the meeting on Tue (Nov 5) about the
publication draft. See slides at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-sidr-1.pdf.
The question to the list is:
Should the protocol be trimmed -- take out all of the “control” operations,
leaving just
The usual rush of last minute requests for agenda time hasn't happened this
time.
We have several presentations likely to produce strong discussion. Even so, it
is likely that we will not be rushed for time.
If there's time, I would like to continue the discussion of Geoff's ideas about
the
Just in case the previous reminder was overtaken by life:
The deadline for draft submission (all drafts, initial and updates) is Monday.
2013-10-21 (Monday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts,
including -00) by UTC 24:00, upload using IETF ID Submission Tool.
--Sandy
The final agenda for IETF88 has been posted.
Here's the link.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/88/agenda.html
--Sandy
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
Speaking as regular ol' member
Some comments on the rollover draft.
The title says an alternative to beaconing - the protocol doc no longer talks
about beaconing, so this is an alternative to a behavior that no longer exists.
I am not certain about the scope of this rollover discussion. The
Various pokes to the list to discuss this haven't been working.
Chris and I are considering holding a virtual meeting - telecon only - for a
short 1-2 hour duration - for discussion of this draft only.
Is that acceptable to you? This requires a two week advance announcement - are
there any
to be a co-author.
Thank you, Benno.
The current authors should work with Benno to divide the draft duties.
--Sandy, speaking as one of the co-chairs
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Murphy, Sandra
[sandra.mur
The draft draft-ietf-sidr-bogons has not seen progress since 2009 and the
authors have not indicated interest in pursuing this.
This draft is now marked as dead in the datatracker.
--Sandy, speaking as one of the co-chairs
___
sidr mailing list
I just saw this announcement. Looks interesting.
--Sandy, speaking as regular ol' member
From: i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org [i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf
of internet-dra...@ietf.org [internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25,
...@ietf.org]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 11:42 AM
To: session-requ...@ietf.org
Cc: sidr-...@tools.ietf.org; morr...@ops-netman.net; Murphy, Sandra;
mur...@tis.com
Subject: sidr - Update to a Meeting Session Request for IETF 88
An update to a meeting session request has just been submitted by Sandra
From: Roque Gagliano (rogaglia) [rogag...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:18 AM
To: Geoff Huston; Murphy, Sandra
Cc: Andy Newton; sidr@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc draft-ietf-sidr-policy-qualifiers-00
Hi Geoff/Sandy,
Agree that we can void the mention on the current status
Some things came up as I reviewed the comments received during wglc. Most of
these are nits, but a few are substantive.
The most substantial of the things that came up are about 2119 language and the
preface's suggestions for eliminating references.
A long message with a lot of detail, sorry.
Dates to remember in preparing for the upcoming meeting
- 2013-09-23 (Monday): Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working Group
meetings at UTC 24:00. To request a Working Group session, use the IETF Meeting
Session Request Tool.
- 2013-09-23 (Monday): Cutoff date for BOF proposal requests
The deadline for corrections to the meeting minutes is next Wednesday, so
please take a look at what was uploaded and note any corrections to the list.
--Sandy, speaking as co-chair
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Murphy
Speaking as regular ol' member
i am trying to understand $subject, and need some help. it seems the
I also don't fully grasp the problem or the solution, and so of course I don't
quite grasp how the solution solves the problem.
So I would also like some help in understanding.
i.e. the
There's even a chair consensus statement on route leaks and forward plan:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg06014.html
--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Christopher
Morrow
There was a brief flurry of messages in response to this that lasted a week (if
you include the messages specifically taking about TAL change).
The minutes note several comments during the meeting about the problem of
maintaining consistency.
This is an important topic. Now that we're back
Speaking as a regular ol' member
I am sympathetic to the concerns that Randy has cited. In particular, I
am uncomfortable
with the ability of a signer to enumerate an unconstrained list of
object types that
are signed. We need to consider the semantic of each object that can be
covered by a
.
From: Andy Newton [a...@arin.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 9:49 AM
To: Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)
Cc: Murphy, Sandra; sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc draft-ietf-sidr-policy-qualifiers-00
This sounds fine to me, though it is really an interoperability
considerations section thingy
The authors of the draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig have both indicated that they see a
need for this draft and are still interested in pursuing the work.
But they both have been appointed to positions that put strong demands on their
time.
Therefore, they would like some indication from the wg that
Thanks, George.
You get the lollipop for being the first to reply.
Here's hoping that others follow your lead in replying promptly.
--Sandy
From: George Michaelson [g...@algebras.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:48 PM
To: Murphy, Sandra
Cc: sidr@ietf.org
On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:53 AM, John Curran said:
I believe it is fine as an indicator of potential CA entities within +/- 50%,
but even that is simply the best estimate at this time.
No smiley?
--Sandy, speaking as regular ol' member
___
sidr
randy, who is not learning anything else new from this rinse repeat
So, you're stating that operator input wrt impacts the RPKI will have on their
networks is not useful to
SIDR? OK, got it.
Randy said nothing new, not nothing.
--Sandy, speaking as regular ol' member.
Speaking as regular ol' member
That all depends on the policy undertaken by each specific provider,
doesn't it? How can you tell the difference between a route with no ROA
because the registry has decertified, and a route with no ROA simply
because one hasn't ever been created?
To an ISP who
The authors of draft-rogaglia-sidr-multiple-publication-points have requested
wg adoption.
See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rogaglia-sidr-multiple-publication-points
Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg adopting this as
a work item. Note that you do not need to
Therefore, I would like not create a new reason for some operators to deploy
BGPSEC.
From the tone of the remarks preceding this sentence, it seems that you might
have misplaced a not in here somewhere.
Could you clarify?
--Sandy
___
sidr mailing
I'd like to point the wg to a previous discussion of the use of ORIGIN over a
few days in October 2012. We're revisiting some of the same ground now.
Start with http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg05179.html and
follow the thread origin attribute. It was a short but intense
But not enough slides.
Presenters are urged to send their slides to the chairs just as soon as
possible. ASAP. RSN.
--Sandy, speaking as a wg co-chair
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
As always, we will need to identify a minute taker and jabber scribe. We can't
start unless we have someone taking minutes and the chairs will be busy with
the presentations.
Note that the etherpad capability lets minutes taking be a collaborative
effort. But we still need to identify
I see that you have a presentation on the agenda for the IEPG meeting on Sunday
about RPKI Spider:
* Erik Osterweil (20 min)
RPKI monitoring system RPKI Spider
(http://rpkispider.verisignlabs.com/), measurements we've been
collecting, and events we've seen.
This sounds like it would be
In reviewing the discussions about the threat document, the wg eventual
consensus wrt one topic was not clear to the chairs.
The ORIGIN attribute was mentioned by some as having the potential to be used
out-of-spec to influence routing through the neighbor (and their neighbors,
etc.).
One
We did get additional requests and/or suggestions for invitations for further
speakers. So for now, it looks like we could be tight to fit it into Monday.
So we will not release the Tues morning slot.
--Sandy
From: Murphy, Sandra
Sent: Thursday, March
Here are some important dates for the upcoming meeting.
Of particular interest, of course, are the deadlines for internet-draft
submission. The deadline for submission of a -00 version is Feb 18, the
deadline for subsequent versions is Feb 25.
Anyone who thinks they will be submitting a -00
.
--Sandy, speaking as regular ol' member
From: Danny McPherson [da...@tcb.net]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 5:20 PM
To: Murphy, Sandra
Cc: sidr wg list
Subject: Re: [sidr] about beaconing and the bgspec-protoocol
On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Murphy
you would prefer it if the ops document discouraged the ISPs from
choosing that particular key rollover strategy.
--Sandy, speaking as co-chair
From: Danny McPherson [da...@tcb.net]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 6:24 PM
To: Murphy, Sandra
Cc: sidr
wrt:
I can't wait until my prefix doesn't make it 'n' AS hops through the Internet
because I used an origin or forward signing key in BGPSEC secure path bits
and an RP (BGP router) upstream didn't have that particular validation key
in their onboard state 'at the ready.
Keys on routers are
From comments made at the mike in the last IETG sidr session after the
discussion of key rollover techniques, I think there might be a bit of
confusion about beaconing.
An Expire Time was a feature of the bgpsec protocol in versions 00-01. The
purpose of the Expire Time was to prevent replay
I happened across the following quite by chance. It seems to be further
explanation of the 5 trust anchors George mentioned previously.
http://www.apnic.net/services/services-apnic-provides/resource-certification/RPKI
--Sandy, speaking as regular ol' member
We still need a minute taker for today's session.
Please do volunteer.
--Sandy, speaking as co-chair
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
is very useful.
--Sandy
From: John Curran [jcur...@arin.net]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 9:52 AM
To: Murphy, Sandra
Cc: sidr wg list
Subject: ARIN RPA presentation - Comments from ARIN
Sandra -
Regarding http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/slides/slides-85
...@ietf.org] on behalf of Shane Amante
[sh...@castlepoint.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:48 PM
To: Michael Sinatra
Cc: sidr@ietf.org; Murphy, Sandra
Subject: Re: [sidr] additions and changes to agenda on Friday
Michael,
On Nov 7, 2012, at 7:48 PM, Michael Sinatra mich...@burnttofu.net
From: Andy Newton [a...@arin.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 6:49 AM
To: Christopher Morrow
Cc: Murphy, Sandra; Alexey Melnikov; sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting
On 11/8/12 12:09 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 8:44 AM, Danny McPherson [da...@tcb.net] said:
If operators always consult their legal departments on deploying new
features,
then there is no need to advise them to consult their legal departments.
This is incorrect.
It's Risks to our business -- risks is
From: Andy Newton [a...@arin.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:38 AM
To: Murphy, Sandra; Christopher Morrow
Cc: Alexey Melnikov; sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting
On 11/8/12 8:21 AM, Murphy, Sandra sandra.mur
Please all those submitting slides - please number your slides.
--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
in calls for adoption. This should
not be a surprise.
--Sandy
From: Andy Newton [a...@arin.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:41 AM
To: Murphy, Sandra; Christopher Morrow
Cc: Alexey Melnikov; sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call
Sorry, you did not say all you said most
--Sandy
From: Danny McPherson [da...@tcb.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:54 AM
To: Murphy, Sandra
Cc: sidr wg list
Subject: Re: [sidr] additions and changes to agenda on Friday
On Nov 8, 2012, at 9:37 AM
]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 11:03 AM
To: Murphy, Sandra
Cc: sidr wg list
Subject: Re: [sidr] additions and changes to agenda on Friday
On Nov 8, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
Sorry, you did not say all you said most
Sandy, could you please not take this out of context? I quoted
Please be aware that one of our presenters this time is remote, so take extra
care to practice good mike and speaking manners.
I have uploaded the latest version of the agenda. Please do pay attention to
the agenda and make sure everyone is shown there.
Slides are coming in and SOME of them
No one has stepped forward to take minutes or serve as the jabber scribe.
Please do volunteer. We can't proceed without both.
--Sandy
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 4:06 PM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: minutes taker and jabber scribe
We presently have
Meetecho is supporting the IETF and the IETF85 web site has lots of Meetecho
information:
http://ietf85.conf.meetecho.com
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/85/remote-participation.html#Meetecho
Those who are intending to participate remotely should pay particular attention
to
...@ietf.org [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Danny
McPherson [da...@tcb.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 1:29 PM
To: Murphy, Sandra
Cc: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] additions and changes to agenda on Friday
On Nov 6, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
I would like to open
The draft sidr agenda was uploaded yesterday. If you requested time at the
upcoming meeting, but you were not added to the agenda, please do poke the
chairs.
This is a draft agenda. If you have topics you wish to discuss at the meeting,
please do make a request.
We have a lot of time in
There are a few topics that had an initial flurry of energetic discussion, were
adopted by the working group, and then had little if any further discussion.
These could be a part of the agenda for the upcoming meeting, but prep for the
discussion by at least looking at the drafts would be
Congratulations! As far as I know, this makes you the very first network to do
origin validation with RPKI data.
I think hearing the details of your experience would be of interest to the wg.
Would it be possible for you to discuss? I realize that your meeting is the
week before IETF, and
To: Murphy, Sandra
Cc: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] LACNIC 18 / LACNOG 2012 conference network
Sandy,
Arturo and I will be in ATL, so yes, we could have a little chat about
the experiencie.
So far, the outcomes I see as possible are:
- Everything crashes down on Sunday/Monday and we have
On nday, October 22, 2012 9:29 AM, Roque said
Significant work on this document should be dependent on the advance of the
key provisioning
specifications (there is still not WG document yet on this point) and some
initial experience.
There is the draft
I would also note that this has been brought up here
Reviewing that was what led to my question to Randy. (something like what is
the reason for having ORIGIN in the first place.)
The responses when this came up in the past have been that protecting integrity
of ORIGIN might be conceivable,
Here are some important dates to keep in mind for IETF85:
2012-10-15 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00)
submission by UTC 24:00.
2012-10-22 (Monday): Internet Draft final submission cut-off by UTC 24:00.
2012-10-24 (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by UTC
The WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility was posted last October.
The co-chairs are satisfied that the recently announced version
draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-07.txt adequately reflects wg comments and
consensus.
The co-chairs will be requesting publication of this draft very soon.
If you have a topic that you would like to see discussed at the IETF84 Atlanta
meeting, please send a request to the list.
--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
The meeting finished discussion early, so anyone who was thinking of joining
late, sorry.
When the meeting recording information is available, I'll send it to the list.
And minutes will be available soon.
--Sandy
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
Below is a description of doing as aliasing based on the vague idea expressed
in my reply to Wes.
This is a first try. It probably has lots of holes and but this will break X.
It might spark some discussion (of my sanity, whatever).
--Sandy, speaking as regular ol' member
In the
: Thursday, September 27, 2012 2:13 PM
To: Murphy, Sandra; sidr@ietf.org
Subject: RE: comments on recent as migration drafts
Thanks for the quick review. Responses below inline.
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Murphy, Sandra
It appears to me that the ga-idr
1 - 100 of 249 matches
Mail list logo
