Re: [sidr] Request for WG Last Call fordraft-ietf-sidr-bogons-02.txt anddraft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-01.txt

["Pradosh Mohapatra (pmohapat)" <[e-mail]>]

| > | > As others have suggested, when "I have been allocated
| > | 203.10.60.0/22",
| > | > I issue an ROA for 203.10.60.0/22-22. That automatically means
| > that
| > | > there can't be any other advertisements for this prefix or its
| > more
| > | > specifics (unless I suballocate a more specific block and a new
| > ROA
| > | > gets added to the repository for that]. Is there any case
| > | that's not
| > | > handled by doing this?
| > | >
| > |
| > | That's your _assumption_ of the sematics of a ROA. What reference 
| > | material or working group draft can you cite for semantic 
| > | interpretation of a ROA?
| > | draft-ieft-sidr-roa-validation? I don't think so. The 
| point of hte 
| > | BOA draft it that it challenges this assumption by taking the 
| > | position that such route aorigination authorities are explicitly 
| > | scoped to the authority described in the object, without the 
| > | implicit inclusion of any other authority or denial.
| >
| > So are you saying that an entity who is not owner of prefix 
| 10/8 can 
| > issue an ROA for it and it would be present in/added to the RPKI 
| > repository?
| >
| 
| The best answer I can give here is please read the sidr 
| drafts. Your question really makes me suspect that you have 
| not done so.

I have. Your response above prompted the question.
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr