Re: [sidr] upcoming wg calls

[Tim Bruijnzeels <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I started sending separate replies, but I am loosing track and spamming
the list in the process.

I agree with George's list, so let me just quote that:
> Call for WGLC, I support:
> 
>  draft-ietf-sidr-roa-format

One very minor nit: I think it would be desirable to have a normative
naming scheme similar to the one used for manifests as defined in the
repos-struct document; using the extension .roa.

Operationally, for validation, it would be useful to have at least the
file extension defined to prevent having to try and parse objects
retrieved to figure out what they are.

But.. I don't want to block this one going forward if others disagree
with this. A large if parses, else if parses, else if parses etc block
in the code is ugly but it can be done.

>  draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr
>  draft-ietf-sidr-keyroll
>  draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs
>  draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct
>  draft-ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning
>  draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-algs
>  draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests
>  draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation
>  draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object
>  draft-ietf-sidr-ta
>  draft-ietf-sidr-arch
> 
> Call for WG adoption, I support:
> 
>  draft-rgaglian-sidr-algorithm-agility
>  draft-ymbk-rpki-origin-ops
> 

Cheers
Tim