Document Action: 'RPKI Router Implementation Report' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-05.txt)

The IESG <> Thu, 02 January 2014 17:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9AC1AD9AD; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 09:21:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YficKarwsB7u; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 09:21:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E5901ADF88; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 09:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Document Action: 'RPKI Router Implementation Report' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-05.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 09:21:51 -0800
Cc: sidr mailing list <>, sidr chair <>, RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 17:21:55 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'RPKI Router Implementation Report'
  (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-05.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working

The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

  This document is an implementation report for the RPKI Router
  protocol as defined in [RFC6810].  The editor did not verify the
  accuracy of the information provided by respondents.  The respondents
  are experts with the implementations they reported on, and their
  responses are considered authoritative for the implementations for
  which their responses represent.  Respondents were asked to only use
  the YES answer if the feature had at least been tested in the lab.

Working Group Summary

  This is a survey of existing implementations, so not a matter subject
  to much opinion or dispute.  Discussion on the working group list was 

Document Quality

  As stated, the draft is a survey of implementations of a protocol. 
  The respondants were trusted to provide true and accurate answers to the
  survey.  There were few responses to the wg last call, but the three
  co-chairs have all reviewed the draft and believe it is ready for
  publication.  The draft is well written and organized.

  As an informational survey document, there will not be implementations.
  However, the document does report on implementations.

  There were no substantive issues.  One reviewer did point to an
  implementation that was not covered in an early version and that
  implementation was added to the survey.


  The Document Shepherd is Sandra Murphy.

  The Responsible Area Director is Stewart Bryant.

RFC Editor Note

In abstract s/[RFC6810]/RFC6810/