Re: [sidr] agenda requests for the Berlin IETF 96 meeting

"Yu Fu" <> Mon, 11 July 2016 03:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C6CC12B029 for <>; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 20:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.188
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BuQtVlerOal3 for <>; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 20:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BFF8128B44 for <>; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 20:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LIUXD (unknown []) by (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0AZIU18E4NXzwcDCg--.39126S3; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:33:16 +0800 (CST)
From: Yu Fu <>
To: 'Sandra Murphy' <>, 'sidr' <>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:33:20 +0800
Message-ID: <00d201d1db24$f89428e0$e9bc7aa0$@cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D3_01D1DB68.06B768E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdHbJPg32az47ZYCQxufwCt7KHEA5A==
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7Kw1rtrW3AFyDJFWfXrWUJwb_yoW8XF1UpF WfWF4fA3WkGF4fWr4kZw18Gry8ZFWfWa9rAr48ta4xAa45CFnYyry7K3WrZFyku3s5Gr17 Zw4j9r15XFZ5A3DanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUPmb7Iv0xC_tr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Xr0_Ar1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Cr0_Gr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_Cr1j6rxdM28EF7xvwV C2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW0oVCq3wAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40Eb7x2 x7xS6ryj6rWUMc02F40E57IF67AEF4xIwI1l5I8CrVAKz4kIr2xC04v26r4j6ryUMc02F4 0E42I26xC2a48xMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r106r15McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm 72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IYc2Ij64vIr41l7480Y4vEI4kI2Ix0rVAqx4xJMx kIecxEwVAFwVW8GwCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwCFx2IqxVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwC20s02 6c02F40E14v26r106r1rMI8I3I0E7480Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_Jr v_JF1lIxkGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvE c7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWUJVWrZr1UMIIF0xvEx4A2js IE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_GrUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZE Xa7IU89vttUUUUU==
X-CM-SenderInfo: pix13q5fqqxugofq/
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] agenda requests for the Berlin IETF 96 meeting
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 03:33:21 -0000

Hi chairs and all,


We'd like to request a time slot of 10 minutes to discuss a topic of ROA
mergence as described in draft-yan-sidr-roa-mergence-00.

During the process of ROA issuance, the address space holder needs to

specify an origin AS for a list of IP prefixes.  Besides, the address

space holder has a free choice to put multiple prefixes into a single

ROA or issue separate ROAs for each prefix based on the current

specification.  This draft analyzes and presents some operational

problems which may be caused by the misconfigurations of ROAs

containing multiple IP prefixes. We would like to have a discussion

in the WG for the suggestions and considerations in this topic.


Also. We have made an update for the draft-lee-sidr-rpki-deployment-02
<>  based on
the comments and feedbacks after my presentation at IETF 95 meeting.

We'd like to request a time slot of 5 minutes to share the update.


Comments and suggestions are appreciated.





-----Original Message-----

From: [] On Behalf Of
Sandra Murphy

Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 5:06 AM

To: sidr

Cc: Sandra Murphy

Subject: [sidr] agenda requests for the Berlin IETF 96 meeting


Anyone who wishes to discuss a topic at the IETF meeting, please send a
message to the list and chairs.


-Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs




Yu Fu