Re: [sidr] Agenda Upload

Hi Chris,

> On 08 Nov 2016, at 00:26, Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net> wrote:
> 
> Draft Agenda was uploaded moments ago.
> 
> I'm sure I missed something(s)
> 
> I'm also sure I signed Tim up for at least 2 things he wasn't prepared
> for (and may not be required)

I see one item with my name, and two others that might have my name implied. 

As far as I am concerned I don't need to talk about any of them. But if the WG feels differently I am happy to - then I would like a bit more guidance though on what to address exactly. Quoting below:

> 3- RRDP/HTTPS - Tim Bruijnzeels                   15 min

The document went through last call and was sent to the IESG on 26 October. If the WG feels it's useful to give an overview of this work once more then I can certainly do so - but I expect it's not needed and it's better to use face to face time for other things. Of course I would be more than happy to discuss this work in person as well.

> 4- Updates to ROA/BGPSEC Router Cert Profiles     20 min

I am confused by this item. Is this because of the updates to these documents we included in reconsidered, which is #6?

> 6- Validation Reconsidered mish/mash              10 min

We went through last call, and then I indicated I would be more confident if people reviewed the ASN.1 and OID changes. Sean Turner did a quick check - thanks :) I want to be really careful here and not take a seat on the chair, but.. it seems to me that unclarities and concerns were addressed.

If not, then I am of course willing to talk about this once more, but would ask the WG to be specific about which aspect should be re-discussed or presented.

> it's a draft :)

no worries, appreciated.

One other thing that I may want to discuss is the future of tree-validation. Not so much the content, but the idea of having (a) document(s) in this WG (or SIDR-OPS in future) that describes a specific implementation. There are two issues: 1) implementation is a moving target, so we will need updates in future, 2) the implementation is not generic (would individual submission be more appropriate? WG feedback was very valuable).

We recently uploaded a version that reflects our 2.23 validator implementation. We indicated that we want to go for last-call on this as soon as possible (I understand that IETF process will mean this will probably be after Seoul). And we indicated that for future updates we plan to document small changes just as notes in the README/RELEASE NOTES of the code, but that we would seek to document more substantial changes through the IETF again in future.

My questions to the WG would be:
= Does the proposal make sense to you?
= Do you agree that these documents can be WG documents?
    - We value the feedback
    - We include the feedback in the document - currently in security considerations
    - But the content of the document reflects actual implementation, not desired implementation.
= Is there a useful parallel to IETF documents describing other open-source implementations?

..or -- I have a preference for having RFCs for this, because I think the review will be more thorough and independent, but -- we can also just discuss this in the WG, but not as an IETF document, and then just include the documents with our validator releases instead?

Cheers
Tim

> 
> -chris
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr