Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alvaro, Ben, Given that I will meet with my co-authors in person at IETF100 I would like to take the opportunity to discuss things there with them in person and then get back to the list. Will both of you be there as well by chance? I think we could benefit from a chat in person in order to

Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Tim, (Apologies for the delayed response) Sorry, but these changes do not resolve my concern. Specifically, I think implementors reading this draft will create inconsistent of mixed-OID chains. Commenting specifically: Section 4.2.1 was changed from saying that the new OID indicates that

Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dear Ben, Alvaro, others, Please find a new version -09 attached. Not uploaded yet, because I thought it better to discuss here first and get clarity. With regards to the changes. I understand that the non-normative text in the abstract and the sections where the new OIDs are introduced in -08

Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On Sep 19, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > > >> On 18 Sep 2017, at 23:36, Ben Campbell wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sep 18, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ben, all, >>> On 15 Sep 2017, at 23:20, Ben Campbell

Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

> On Sep 18, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > > Hi Ben, all, > >> On 15 Sep 2017, at 23:20, Ben Campbell wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> See comments inline. I apologize in advance if I am just being dense, and I >> cannot claim to be an expert on how one

Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Ben, all, > On 15 Sep 2017, at 23:20, Ben Campbell wrote: > > Hi, > > See comments inline. I apologize in advance if I am just being dense, and I > cannot claim to be an expert on how one applies a path validation policy OID > in general. > > > Thanks! > > Ben. > >>

Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, See comments inline. I apologize in advance if I am just being dense, and I cannot claim to be an expert on how one applies a path validation policy OID in general. Thanks! Ben. > On Sep 14, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > > Hi, > > Sure. I also proceeded to

Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alvaro’s interpretation is indeed what I meant. My concern is with what works and what doesn’t work with the basic mechanism. How it will get used in practice is a related, but different, issue. Thanks! Ben. > On Sep 13, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) > wrote:

Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Explicitly adding Terry…] Tim: Hi! As I think you understand from the response below, there are two parts to consider when deploying: what can be done, and what will be done. Interpreting what Ben and Terry wrote…what I think they are asking is for you to clarify in this document the

Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, My apologies for the delay - I am just back from a late summer holiday. Let me address the DISCUSS is in this, and Terry Manderson’s email, first. > On 29 Aug 2017, at 04:36, Ben Campbell wrote: > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >

[sidr] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-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.)