Although I was not present at the BA SIDR meeting, I did participate
remotely for one of the sessions. I recall the discussion of the I-D
that tries to collect all of the RP requirements in one place, with
cites to the sources of these requirements. It part, I recall folks at
the mic arguing that this I-D was redundant relative to the existing WG
document on tree validation. I don't think this is an accurate
comparison of the two docs, although I agree that there is overlap
between them.
RPKI tree validation describes how the RIPE RP software works. It
includes references to 6 SIDR RFCs to explain why the software performs
certain checks. The RP requirements doc cites 11 SIDR RFCs, plus the
BGPsec (router cert) profile. Thus it appears that the requirements doc
tries to address a wider set of RFCs relevant to RP requirements. More
importantly, the requirements doc is generic, while the tree validation
doc is expressly a description of one RP implementation. Thus it is an
example of how that implementation tries to meet the RP requirements,
not a general characterization of RP requirements.
Thus I think it appropriate to proceed with both docs.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
