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

Danny McPherson <> Thu, 10 November 2011 02:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447D521F85EF for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:43:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.399
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ws3uIIuBIMKE for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:43:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:7:36e::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83EB021F85B8 for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:43:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D38F1900A8; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:43:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from dul1dmcphers-m1.home ( []) (Authenticated sender: danny@OPS-NETMAN.NET) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 15372320093; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:43:00 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-4--1011603339"
From: Danny McPherson <>
In-Reply-To: <p06240805cae063a02041@[]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:43:00 -0500
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <p06240805cae063a02041@[]>
To: Stephen Kent <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: sidr wg list <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:43:05 -0000

On Nov 9, 2011, at 1:42 PM, Stephen Kent wrote:

>> The main reasons have to do with fundamental aspects which at a high
>> level have been addressed by my colleagues,
> so, this is a Verisign critique, provided by you, Eric, and Danny?

Not that I need to justify or explain this to you or anyone else here...  I
agree it is quite interesting that we all arrived at similar conclusions with 
NO express coordination on this end - perhaps it's indicative of finally
giving due consideration to what operationalizing and being held captive 
to such things entails - not simply 'running code, [standards], and run 
away', having to operationalize certainly impacts perspective.

The purpose of last call is to encourage folks to review the documents, 
I'd have thought you would welcome such reviews, unless the goal is 
for "the authors" to simply prescribe to the working group and use SIDR 
as a publication medium for work done outside the IETF.  Furthermore, 
given the barrage of documents that will eventually lead to operational 
requirements for some folks involved in these efforts, I'm very concerned 
they'll not get proper review.

BTW: if you'd really like to evaluate contributions and funding sources
in full let me know, I'm sure I can plot some dependency graphs for you ;-)

I'll say no more on this topic here and stand by the technical merit of 
comments made -- if ANYONE would like more details on any of this 
find me in TPE.