Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds

Randy Bush <> Wed, 17 February 2021 23:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29BE43A1E29 for <>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 15:29:22 -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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6JhhXgmGIuDa for <>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 15:29:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB5623A1E28 for <>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 15:29:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <>) id 1lCWFz-00007f-Ak; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 23:29:19 +0000
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 15:29:16 -0800
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
To: Joe Clarke <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 23:29:22 -0000

now that last call is over, it's time to make trouble by requesting to
add a hack.  ggm, doc shepherd, has this idea about hierarchic signing
which would affect this doc by adding

   If an inetnum: A points to a geofeed file which is signed per
   Section 4, then a geofeed file pointed to by inetnum: B which is
   covered by A (i.e., B is for a more specific prefix of A) the
   geofeed file pointed to by inetnum: B SHOULD also be signed.  If not,
   then the consumer should be suspicious of data within the geofeed
   file pointed to by B.

to 5.  Operational Considerations

would anyone care to comment, object, maybe even support?