IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] Discussion topics for the virtual interim on June 29th

Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net> Thu, 21 June 2012 11:02 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@ripe.net>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD72521F851A for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IF+Jp5VPvoLO for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1342]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D050E21F8517 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 04:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dodo.ripe.net ([193.0.23.4]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1Shf9S-0007kz-Vq; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:02:16 +0200
Received: from s258-sslvpn-1.ripe.net ([193.0.20.231] helo=vpn-146.ripe.net) by dodo.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1Shf9S-00021m-Mf; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:02:14 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <m2ehpde4if.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:02:14 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4FFFB60-F1E2-4C55-BECC-18BA9F141B6B@ripe.net>
References: <4FD8CB92.9030205@isode.com> <m27gv9tj7d.wl%randy@psg.com> <996DA30F-DC37-4147-B8EE-CDF02A11A258@isode.com> <m2ehpde4if.wl%randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Linux Mail Server 5.6.48/RELEASE, bases: 20120425 #7816575, check: 20120621 clean
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: --
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000]
X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a07194c1356ca88c8f7102aa9e7706e16d7d9
Cc: sidr wg <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Discussion topics for the virtual interim on June 29th
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:02:19 -0000

Hi,

On 18 Jun 2012, at 04:30, Randy Bush wrote:
> it sounds as if tim wants to discuss a point in pfx-validate, and
> whether it is a security issue.  we need to get that draft gone, so
> let's try to clear any issues folk have.

I am not sure if a lengthy discussion is needed. My point is just that I believe that pfx-validate should state its requirement for full knowledge clearly. How to meet this requirement is another matter and it does not have to block this draft as far as I am concerned.

I would like to discuss stuff we are working on wrt another way to deal with the rpki repository, including ideas that might help to meet this requirement, at the pre-ietf interim.

Tim

v2.20.3 | Report a Bug | By Email