Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

(I appreciate the corrections, and I really was trying to not be political
nor be mean to the political parts)

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:39 PM, David Conrad <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Chris,
>
> On September 7, 2016 at 4:42:21 AM, Christopher Morrow (
> [e-mail]) wrote:
>
> I don't disagree that running a CA is 'simple'... I think though that if
> the RIRs are in a position where there won't be a single root above them
> 'for a while' (it's been ~10 yrs at this point) but they feel they need to
> move forward with something, is this direction acceptable? is it better to
> document that decision and it's gotchas than to not move forward at all? or
> to 'continue waiting for the single root' to arrive?
>
> For blood pressure spiking reasons, I have been trying to keep out of this
> discussion, but this put me over the edge.
>

sorry about that, not trying to get people angry, really.


> As far as I am aware, ICANN as the IANA Internet Numbering Functions
> Operator, has been and continues to be willing to provide RPKI "single
> root" services. In point of fact, ages ago, I personally authorized
> non-trivial expenditures (including hiring staff) to set up and deploy a
> working RPKI root pilot to allow the RIRs to test working with a single
> root as directed by the IAB in https://www.iab.org/documents/
> correspondence-reports-documents/docs2010/iab-statement-on-the-rpki/:
>
> "Thus, the IAB strongly recommends a single root aligned with the root of
> the address allocation hierarchy (now part of the IANA function). "
> After said testbed deployment, I was informed that none of the RIRs were
> interested in participating in the tests.
>
>
doh! ok, so some mixed signals, that sucks. and makes this confusing and
hard to fix... going forward though, what's the path? "get rir and
iana/icann to agree that this is important, set a schedule for deployment,
profit?"


> I will admit a high level of amazement and not a small amount of
> disappointment at the fascinating level of complexity being created in
> order to avoid a single root.
>
> This is not technical.
>
>
ok, so we're back to: "I hear what you are saying, we (community) really
need 'single root' please go make that happen."

it seems to me.

-chris