#15: Incremental deployment concerns
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: g...@… | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: medium | Milestone:
Component: arch | Version:
Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords:
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Sam Welier has noted the following concerns:
The broader concern:
I continue to lack confidence that our validation algorithm is
complete, particularly when we look at incremental deployment. That
leads me to wonder whether changes to the validation model will lead
us to changes in the data. There's a reason the architecture doc has
normative references to so many other active sidr docs, including ones
that aren't yet to the point of WGLC, and I'm uneasy about pushing
this doc out until I'm more confident about the validation model.
This doc doesn't talk in depth about incremental deployment. Instead,
it uses 2119 MUSTs to describe a full-deployment world (e.g., in
7.2.3, "A holder of a portable IP address space allocation MUST
authorize one or more ASes to originate routes to these prefixes.")
I'd prefer to see this doc acknowledge the existence of partial
deployment and explain how it will work. (Will it? If so, how?) For
example: the document never clearly states what (if anything) signals
that the set of ROAs for a given address block is complete. Maybe we
need to say "we're not yet defining a signal for 'this is the complete
set of ROAs'; that's be in a different doc", but it's a glaring
omission.
This document also asks IANA to issue RPKI certs. I'm leery of asking
them to do that when I still have doubts about the completeness of the
architecture. Should we be pushing out the doc calling on IANA to deploy
when the other bits aren't done yet?
--
Ticket URL: <http://zinfandel.levkowetz.com/wg/sidr/trac/ticket/15>
sidr <http://tools.ietf.org/sidr/>
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
