IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] adopting alternate trust format in draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Thu, 26 August 2010 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
X-Original-To: sidr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E383A69D4 for <sidr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.253
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.352, BAYES_00=-2.599, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ckq2UCpRKymy for <sidr@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331AE3A689B for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp71.potaroo.net (eth143.act.adsl.internode.on.net [203.16.208.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F66D589E; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:02:18 +1000 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <p06240807c89b564850eb@[169.223.10.196]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:02:12 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <60A59971-AA89-45A5-9C81-5F3C860F264F@apnic.net>
References: <Pine.WNT.4.64.1008250258010.5868@SMURPHY-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com> <p06240807c89b564850eb@[169.223.10.196]>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, Sam Weiler <weiler@tislabs.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: Sandra Murphy <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com>, sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] adopting alternate trust format in draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:01:55 -0000

On 26/08/2010, at 9:27 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:

> At 4:18 AM -0400 8/25/10, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>> Draft draft-weiler-sidr-trust-anchor-format-00.txt suggests an alternate trust anchor representation format from that proposed in draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04.  This alternate format was discussed in the sidr meeting in IETF78 in Maastricht.
>> 
>> I am asking for comment on the list as to whether there is wg consensus that draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04 should use the alternative format.
>> 
>> Please respond so that the authors can represent wg consensus in the draft.  The call for consensus will end Sept 8.
>> 
>> --Sandy
> 
> I am in favor of the WG switching to the simpler format, but only if the issues I raised on the list and at the meeting are addressed. Also, I would not characterize the question as you did above. Isn't the proposal for a (hopefully revised) version of Sam's draft to replace sidr-ta-04?

I am happy to work with Sam to produce a single co-edited draft, if Sam is equally willing to do so.

Sam?

  Geoff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email