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

[Terry Manderson <[e-mail]>]

On 4/11/11 6:56 PM, "Stephen Kent" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> I think the BCP idea is appropriate.  I don't agree with your gray
> area argument. Let's avoid terms like "desperate."
> 
>> But neither this document (in blessing the idea) nor
>> draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-algs (as standards track) is the place for it.
> 
> let's just say we disagree, modulo the idea of putting the milestones in
> a BCP.

O.k Sure.

Remove the date specification going into the sidr-rpki-algs document and
construct whatever words are needed to say that the WG will adopt a BCP work
item helped along by the NRO, IANA (and it's operator), IAB etc.

Modulo the WG approval and WG Chair's happiness with this direction. :-)

> 
>
> 
> In principle the RIRs & IANA, perhaps the NRO & IANA, would be an
> appropriate group to issue such a statement. So far, this process has
> been rocky, which is probably why there is an IAB-issused statement
> re IANA as a global TA for the RPKI. Nonetheless, this might be a
> reasonable split of responsibility, i.e., alg spec through the IETF
> process, and milestone publication via an RFC authored by the NRO and
> IANA.
> 

I think that is a step forward.

I'll look for the revised draft and will read as soon as I can.

Terry