Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

David Conrad <> Thu, 08 September 2016 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC39612B231 for <>; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 10:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rx1ocA1jkErC for <>; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 10:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48AE612B242 for <>; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 10:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id id6so19451336pad.3 for <>; Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=BqR3Jo9pI7aO/7b5RmY24c5ONo+KwZj8FerhkIZGZK8=; b=kS5Dbj/ED04KORWprsBSGUfQb0Jv0Cp3DW0eQ8MeD62PNw/xcOw6iC8vEtyIdNviyC IWIiG9WCd/1UFLFk03aBIVYD0oDFVM9v9NWqdcsbO88TGbWwNvFQ6JV7cDh3IWhIAFoQ omFpU5iFmUEWPt5o8SQnaBGC+3MJvgHFCStqfzKWeQU9QkV+M8HPiYGAHKYowl5jaR4t jMbos/e0PZbhRYyO29yBaF1gLLAQ+yyZtSiB6ilkUDBW2ZHTu3Bl+fhvLPJukxCiJpHu itHYBKNBAb6wh+5icUOFQJJucqJNGahuGj8m2awe3tIva3wHu9OjJTcAtsZOwQCjUHqT QxGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=BqR3Jo9pI7aO/7b5RmY24c5ONo+KwZj8FerhkIZGZK8=; b=NPqSBks9GI2t430dBPPsGp0u5Ch8athMI4LJSjq/11cRQvvR7VvNk1FvTF8dxTzWAN imDjnvtrahYI2RXpKdhOvKiehyurm0XsHia+dRL72LWHfR4+fAhqCfOqhWraacwYTSqx UToSN5WM/q5ZSkPqXH9kIEuN1w5h2+LPL4RsNxeMiMGAs6o95AXkT1qDpK4e233aQUOT oZZGbmVB2IlsudWpMhX4+E93WCibo0Rh2Jiz/xKmhBznY9mVGXLzZ2X5JWM6Rk0kGkE1 GYZN2ZI6QVN9LXPlc/xCSoINpyLEip2AApKthGwGts5ofHnFdHu63nuQ/b7NqTKB0rHD RWdQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOjkU60jPr4j9HutQ7p+9UHBEKrqo92diHIGeEdyABE4Avv38/fG/fpGDq6PowmmA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id xd10mr1484740pab.41.1473356857852; Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DACO-4417.local.mail ([]) by with ESMTPSA id b20sm30920092pfb.55.2016. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 07:47:34 -1000
From: David Conrad <>
To: Christopher Morrow <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Airmail (382)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="00DBB800-61F1-4618-A151-853EE2AB7093"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: sidr wg list <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 17:47:40 -0000


sure... I think sriram may cover this in his document about the decision processes which lead to where we are today.

I think, one way to look at the document and situation is this:
  o community folks for each RIR asked for RPKI to be supported
  o RIR folk put in some development $$/effort to do that
  o no single-root came forward
This is NOT accurate. ICANN, as the IANA Internet Numbering Functions Operator, did come forward and we were informed there was no interest from the RIRs for the IANA Internet Numbering Functions Operator to participate in testing a single root RPKI service.

  o to make the RPKI work, specifically for xfers, or one way wrt transfers, is to fake the root at each RIR.
  o rpki progress can still be made until single-root arrives, and then some re-signing and probably rough work would have to happen to move under the single-root.
apologies for not being up on the chain-of-command, but this doesn't seem like it's enough... we've been waiting, what are the blockers? why can't this action move forward? (yes, politics, let's move that to anyother list I  suppose)
I suspect if the Internet Numbering Community would be interested in a single root operated by the IANA Internet Numbering Functions Operator, all they need do is _ask_.



(ICANN CTO, but speaking only for myself. Really)

P.S. In my previous note, I forgot to include the above disclaimer. I am not speaking for ICANN here.