On 2/11/11 6:34 PM, "Stephen Kent" <k...@bbn.com> wrote: >> >> Architecture, yes. Structured approach, yes. To both of those I agree. >> Having the IETF define the dates when algorithms shift. I am not convinced. > > An architecture that ignores the need to have a global, uniform set > of milestones for transition phases is incomplete.
I appreciate your view Steve. And in the traditional sense you are correct, unfortunately I think that level of completion, as a standards document, will be the 'enemy of the good' as that flips right over into operational space. > > Yes, we are talking years. No, it cannot be a local, per-CA decision, because > the transition affects all RPs. I anticipate that the stakeholders, > CAs and RPs, will have the ability to comment on the proposed dates, > and that the IETF/IESG will take into account these comments when > developing the timeline. If a major problem arises that makes it > infeasible for CAs to adhere t the timeline, a new RFC can be issued. If you are that desperate to see this in play, then perhaps SIDR should consider creating an operational BCP that provides the recommendation for algorithms phase-in/phase-out dates. And in that comes the warning, that IETF specified dates (except for past events) are in a very grey area WRT the IETF. But neither this document (in blessing the idea) nor draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-algs (as standards track) is the place for it. > > >> What I do like about the document is the pre-canned phases, of what happens >> when, and how. This is good.. and I think that satisfies the request from >> the SEC ADs, but specifying the "when" in IETF - I just don't buy. > > So, who do you propose as alternates? Your comment above about > parent(s) and "non-leaf" CAs issuing a statement encompasses IANA, > the RIRs, and thousands of ISPs. When has that set of players issued > a statement analogous to this? Surely the ISPs would be represented by or through the RIRs? I'm not an expert in communications between IANA/ICANN/RIRs but if they needed to issue a statement based on stakeholder (RP) consultation for 'the good of the internet', its likely they would. Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
