In the last meeting, George Michaelson and John Scudder had an exchange of
comments about the roa-validation draft (now
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-05). John said
that the draft lacked specifics for implementers and George said that
this was the authors' intent, that the draft should be viewed as an
abstract statement of what route validation with the RPKI should mean.
We have seen two different proposals for implementing route validation:
Ruediger Volk's proposal to use ROAs with existing IRR based filter
generation tools (and a mapping from ROAs to IRR objects), and Dave Ward's
presentation of a BGP decision process mechanism that uses ROA
information.
I see no reason to believe that there will never be other proposals for
implementing route validation, or that we must decide on a single
proposal.
Recall that Geoff commented that our charter does call for us to work on
router implementation specifics. (He referred to the "Document specific
routing functionality modules" part in particular.)
I suggest to the working group that we could proceed with the current
draft as the abstract model for route validation, and leave open the
potential for other drafts that bring proposals for implementation
specifics for route validation. (And that we should begin working on such
implementation drafts.)
--Sandy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
