On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Sean Turner <turn...@ieca.com> wrote: > I guess I should have also said that I support moving this draft down the > path towards publication. >
I got that :) I am/was/am waiting for the next rev to pop into the tracker. > spt > > > On 3/4/13 6:40 PM, Terry Manderson wrote: >> >> I'll go along with that. >> >> I'm not seeing any major structural alterations to the draft (at this >> stage) by doing that. >> >> Cheers, >> Terry >> >> On 02/03/2013, at 2:37 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Great... so assuming the authors deal with this set of comments we'll >>> ask them to spin a new version and submit that for WGLC when it >>> arrives? >>> >>> Does that seem like a good path for those still listening? >>> >>> -chris >>> co-chair-1-of-3 >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Sean Turner <turn...@ieca.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Below are some comments on the draft. I also submitted my nits to the >>>> editors. >>>> >>>> 0) Based on the assumption that draft-newton-sidr-policy-qualifiers will >>>> be >>>> adopted because that's what the RIRs want should s1.2 or 1.5 also >>>> include >>>> some information about where it can be found? This information would be >>>> identical to the URI included in the policy qualifier? >>>> >>>> 1) s1.6: CP - Is it worth nothing that there might be another CP for the >>>> BPKI? >>>> >>>> 2) s4.6.1: Not sure if this needs to go here but don't we need to say >>>> something about not renewing certificates forever? >>>> >>>> 3) draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying describes the procedures for operator >>>> generated keys (i.e., those that are not router generated). A couple of >>>> questions come to mind: >>>> >>>> a) Should the CPS point to that draft in s6.1.2 or will the CPS be >>>> updated >>>> when draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying is published? >>>> >>>> b) draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying allows operators sign the private keys >>>> they >>>> generate and subsequently send back to the router. Should this be >>>> explicitly called out in s4.5.1. For s.4.5.2, is the returned >>>> signed-key an >>>> RPKI-Signed Object? >>>> >>>> spt >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/21/13 11:30 PM, Chris Morrow wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> WG folks, >>>>> As the subject states, let's please start a WGLC poll for the document: >>>>> draft-ietf-sidr-cps-01 >>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-cps-01> >>>>> >>>>> with the abstract: >>>>> "This document contains a template to be used for creating a >>>>> Certification Practice Statement (CPS) for an Organization that is >>>>> part of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), e.g., a >>>>> resource allocation registry or an ISP." >>>>> >>>>> So far the authors have made a few revisions, with updates based on >>>>> comments/feedback, at this time the document has been stable for more >>>>> than 6 months time, let's move this along if there are no further >>>>> issues/addendums/questions/appendixes. >>>>> >>>>> thanks! >>>>> -chris >>>>> co-chair-1-of-3 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> sidr mailing list >>>>> sidr@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sidr mailing list >>>> sidr@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sidr mailing list >>> sidr@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >> >> > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
