Tim, > 在 2016年6月30日，22:46，Tim Bruijnzeels <t...@ripe.net> 写道： > > Hi, > > The point that I was trying to make, but maybe not clearly, is that > rpki-tree-validation is indeed intended as an Informational document > specifically detailing our implementation only, but that the RP implementers > discussed earlier during WG sessions that we might want to create a > generalised RP requirement, or even BCP validation document at a later stage. > So I was just somewhat surprised to see this come up. >
Sorry that I did not let you know we were doing the RP I-D in advance. Thank you and Oleg for kicking off the topic on RP implementation by writing rpki-tree-validation :-) > That being said, we are all busy, so I have no problem with you taking the > lead in the effort to document the generalised RP requirements instead. > Especially as an Informational document referencing the authoritative docs - > as it seems to do. Anyway, inputs from RP software implementers are quite important to the job of laying out the generalized RP requirements. Steve and I are therefore looking forwards to seeing contributions from the RP implementers. Please let us know any improvements that should be made. Di > > Tim > > >> On 30 Jun 2016, at 07:09, Declan Ma <m...@zdns.cn> wrote: >> >> Hi, all, >> >> Speaking as the co-author of ‘Requirements for Resource Public Key >> Infrastructure (RPKI) Relying Parties’, >> >> In addition to the clarification made by Steve, I would like to deliver a >> clear message here that this draft is intended to make the RP requirements >> well framed, which are segmented with orthogonal functionalities in >> different sections. >> >> As such, those ‘functional components’ could be crafted and distributed >> across the operational timeline of an RP software . >> >> We would appreciate your comments on this document. >> >> Di >> ZDNS >> >> >>> 在 2016年6月29日，02:19，Stephen Kent <k...@bbn.com> 写道： >>> >>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
