To: sidr@ietf.org; sidr-cha...@ietf.org; sidr-...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops-
Hello WG folk,
This draft has undergone 9 revisions since the last WGLC, which seemed
to end with requests for changes by the authors.
Can we now have a final
-Original Message-
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Christopher Morrow
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 11:03 AM
To: sidr@ietf.org; sidr-cha...@ietf.org; sidr-...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops-
Hello WG folk
I've reviewed this draft and have a number of comments:
At a high level, I think this draft is a very important piece of the sidr
landscape, so I certainly applaud Randy for writing it.
- The second sentence in the abstract is a fragment, without a direct object.
Section 1 Intro:
- 1st
On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
Hello WG folk,
This draft has undergone 9 revisions since the last WGLC, which seemed
to end with requests for changes by the authors.
Can we now have a final-final-please-let's-progress WGLC for this
draft now? Let's end the call:
Hello WG folk,
This draft has undergone 9 revisions since the last WGLC, which seemed
to end with requests for changes by the authors.
Can we now have a final-final-please-let's-progress WGLC for this
draft now? Let's end the call: 08/31/2012 (Aug 31 2012).
Htmlized version available at:
shane,
going through the mailbox to pick up any un-addressed issues, i came
across your comment
what I've been attempting to ask here is how one configures, in one's
_local_ RPKI cache (that syncs to the outside world), /where/ the
RIR's publication points are on Day 1. Do I contact one RIR
Reviving a zombie thread...
So,
Where does this set of comments end us? Are the updates put in between
11/11 and 03/12 taking care of the discussion? or are there still
things to wrangle?
I think, given the length and breadth of discussion here we'd all do
to re-read and re-WGLC this doc once
Hi Randy,
Thanks for the response. I think we're getting closer. See below.
On Nov 14, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
1) From Section 3:
---snip---
A local valid cache containing all RPKI data may be gathered from the
global distributed database using the rsync protocol,
At Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:45:09 +0800, Shane Amante wrote:
More specifically, what I've been attempting to ask here is how one
configures, in one's _local_ RPKI cache (that syncs to the outside
world), /where/ the RIR's publication points are on Day 1. Do I
contact one RIR (which maintains a
Thanks for the response. I think we're getting closer. See below.
i am too stuffed with good food to work tonight. can you catch me in
the terminal room tomorrow or whenever. i hang with the rpki interop
testing folk. we can talk and hack.
randy
On Nov 14, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Rob Austein wrote:
Ultimately, the problem is the same as distributing DNSSEC TAs, or any
other TA for that matter. Pretty much by definition, these things
have to be configured outside the automated system, because they're
the bootstrap data. Inclusion in
Checking back on this... I see that Randy had rev'd the document since
this last conversation-set ... Danny has 2 editorial changes and 1
'large' comment... I don't yet see any feedback on those, but the
previous set of comments/requests are taken care of to the original
peoples' satsifaction?
I
Checking back on this... I see that Randy had rev'd the document since
this last conversation-set ... Danny has 2 editorial changes and 1
'large' comment... I don't yet see any feedback on those, but the
previous set of comments/requests are taken care of to the original
peoples'
Hi Chris, Randy,
On Nov 14, 2011, at 12:03 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
Checking back on this... I see that Randy had rev'd the document since
this last conversation-set ... Danny has 2 editorial changes and 1
'large' comment... I don't yet see any feedback on those, but the
previous set of
On Nov 13, 2011, at 11:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
NotFound is a keyword.
I assume it was derived from the normative pfx-validate draft and was
simply hoping for consistent use:
danny@pork% grep -i found draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt
peer will be found to have one of the following
One other minor comment/question about this draft:
The term ``Matched'' is defined, and only used once in combination with
covered. Considering that the document seems to (rightly) try to remain
decoupled/agnostic of the system design of the RPKI, is this distinction
important enought to
danny@pork% grep -i found draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-03.txt
peer will be found to have one of the following validation states:
o Not found: No ROA Covers the Route Prefix.
//Initialize result to not found state
result = BGP_PFXV_STATE_NOT_FOUND;
//not found applies to this
On Nov 13, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I suspect some feedback to Danny will come soonish, but can we close
out the other set of requests?
Chris,
I'm not sure I understand the request, can you clarify?
I.e., until I've had adequate time to review updated I-Ds with changes
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net wrote:
On Nov 13, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I suspect some feedback to Danny will come soonish, but can we close
out the other set of requests?
Chris,
I'm not sure I understand the request, can you clarify?
From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com
there were a slew of changes (or a slew of comments made) requested, a
document update happened ~13 days ago, did the changes account for the
comments/requests or not?
[WEG] I diffed 11 and 12 when 12 came out, and no, not really. As I recall,
Shane
1) From Section 3:
---snip---
A local valid cache containing all RPKI data may be gathered from the
global distributed database using the rsync protocol, [RFC5781], and
a validation tool such as rcynic [rcynic].
---snip---
Would it be possible to mention and/or point to how the
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:41 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com
there were a slew of changes (or a slew of comments made) requested, a
document update happened ~13 days ago, did the changes account for the
comments/requests or not?
[WEG] I
Randy, I think I know why you keep calling me Shane - we tend to raise similar
concerns on your drafts ;-)
See also http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg03408.html
Shane articulates it better, but consider this a +1 on his comments regarding
the -12 proposed text. The only other
thanks for the review!
- whether it's intended or 'safe' to use BGP Attributes, (MED, communities),
to convey validity of prefixes from one ASN to another ASN
what is valid for you may not be valid for me, see draft-ietf-sidr-ltamgmt.
- better guidance/recommendations around the number,
On Oct 30, 2011, at 6:57 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
note that the RIRs were talking 24 hour publication cycles, last i heard
(long ago, i admit). [ i thought this was nutso ] so a lot of this has
yet to play out.
I see 4-6 hours in the document, but what do you really think is
reasonable
Hi Randy,
On Oct 30, 2011, at 4:57 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
[--snip--]
1) From Section 3:
---snip---
A local valid cache containing all RPKI data may be gathered from the
global distributed database using the rsync protocol, [RFC5781], and
a validation tool such as rcynic [rcynic].
I have some questions that pertain to this document, specifically around:
- whether it's intended or 'safe' to use BGP Attributes, (MED, communities), to
convey validity of prefixes from one ASN to another ASN
- better guidance/recommendations around the number, placement and
synchronization
Two folks seem to have given this a read-through, is that all the
interest that exists? is documenting how originators of routes ought
to think/use/abuse RPKI not something we should do here?
please chime in if you've given this a read and are onboard with it
moving forward.
-chris
On Sat, Oct
I have read the document, like what it says and how it says it.
I support it moving forward, as it is.
Brian
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Two folks seem to have given this a read-through, is that all the
interest that exists? is documenting
Hi,
I have read, and I support moving this forward.
Jay B.
Christopher Morrow writes:
Two folks seem to have given this a read-through, is that all the
interest that exists? is documenting how originators of routes ought
to think/use/abuse RPKI not
.
Other than those two items, I say ship it.
Thanks,
Wes
-Original Message-
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Christopher Morrow
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 9:37 AM
To: sidr@ietf.org; sidr-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr
What's the rationale of this change from version 10 to 11?
after much discussion with ops and security folk, it is the purpose of
the whole exercise
randy
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
32 matches
Mail list logo
