Hi, I read the draft and I support adoption.
I think this addresses a real problem both in the transfer case described in the document, and in fragility wrt unintended changes in the hierarchical RPKI. This could be considered bad CA ops, but even then I think the impact on the children should be reduced. Furthermore, as a general approach I agree with the proposed model. I understand this is a deviation from the existing RFC3779 validation algorithms that are currently implemented (obviously the point of this proposal), but while this will therefore require work to implement I see absolutely no problems doing so in the RP tool that we maintain. For what it's worth I think our work for this can be counted in days tops. Tim On Apr 25, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Sandra Murphy <sa...@tislabs.com> wrote: > The authors of draft-huston-rpki-validation-01.txt, RPKI Validation > Reconsidered, have requested wg adoption. > > See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huston-rpki-validation-01. > > Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg adopting this > as a work item. You do not need to comment on the content of this draft at > this time. You are asked to indicate if you think that this is work that the > wg should be doing and whether this draft is an acceptable starting point. > Adding whether you can/will review or not is useful. > > Note that active support is required for adoption. Silence is a vote against > adoption. > > This adoption call will end on 9 May 2014. > > --Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair > _______________________________________________ > 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
