Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Fri, 04 November 2011 09:03 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.com>
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 3F47B21F8C2F for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 02:03:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 mqI2wmZ8S0+M for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 02:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581E921F8BFB for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 02:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:56623 helo=[193.0.26.186]) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.74 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1RMFfg-0008rK-MB; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 05:02:45 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240803cad951813fd9@[193.0.26.186]>
In-Reply-To: <7B40776F-D906-46DA-A788-C4E9C0E758A9@verisign.com>
References: <CAD6DA02.1C611%terry.manderson@icann.org> <p06240803cad6af1b0ce7@[193.0.26.186]> <7B40776F-D906-46DA-A788-C4E9C0E758A9@verisign.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 04:45:59 -0400
To: Eric Osterweil <eosterweil@verisign.com>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Cc: "draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility@tools.ietf.org>, "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03
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: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:03:12 -0000

Eric,

1- Yes, there is a need for global coordination for alg transition, 
under the design  presented. If you have an alternative proposal, 
please share it. This design was originally documented in June, 2010, 
in an individual I-D authored by me.  It has been briefed at several 
SIDR WG meetings, starting at IETF 78 in July, 2010. This is not new.

2- Not exactly. The milestones, as well as the alg suite spec, will 
appear in a revised version of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-algs. Any 
operational problem that requires a delay in any transition phase 
would be brought to the attention of the IESG (if the SIDR WG is no 
longer active) requesting that a this RFC be re-issued, with new 
milestone values for the affected phase(s).

Steve