Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops-

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, > > This draft has undergone 9 revisions since the last WGLC, which seemed

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops-

s that we shouldn't do that..." "ok, why? And where do you want to put it?" "ummm... 'close' to the routers? Because...reasons" Thanks, Wes George > -Original Message- > From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf O

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops-

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 paragr

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops-

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:

[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-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: http://to

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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 RI

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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 thin

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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 d

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

> 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

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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, [

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:41 AM, George, Wes 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 diffed 11 an

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

> 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 h

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

> 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

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Danny McPherson 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? can

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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 change

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

> 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" appli

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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 keep

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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 "va

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

> 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' satsifac

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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 s

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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 [rcyni

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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, p

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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 char

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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 someth

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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 wrote: > Two folks seem to have given this a read-through, is that all the > interest that exists? is documenting how originators of ro

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

As a WG participant who reads this with a "writing a MIB module for RPKI" I have no issues with this document. Bert On 10/28/11 3:59 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: Two folks seem to have given this a read-through, is that all the interest that exists? is documenting how originators of routes oug

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

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 1

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

>> 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. you wanna stop 7007? fwiw, it has swung back and forth a few times randy ___ sidr mailing list

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

> 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

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

I just have one comment. What's the rationale of this change from version 10 to 11? 10 "Announcements with Invalid origins MAY be used, but SHOULD be less preferred than those with Valid or NotFound." 11 "Announcements with Invalid origins SHOULD NOT be used, but MAY be use

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

Friday, October 14, 2011 9:37 AM > To: sidr@ietf.org; sidr-cha...@ietf.org > Subject: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops > > SIDR Folk, > Please see the subject, draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops is at version 11, > it's gotten some significant feedback over it's lifetime and

[sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

SIDR Folk, Please see the subject, draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops is at version 11, it's gotten some significant feedback over it's lifetime and is now stabilized. Let's re-read and consider passing this up to the IESG for their review, eh? Tools page for doc: