Re: [sidr] agenda requests for the Berlin IETF 96 meeting

Dear authors,

During the meeting in BA I commented on the following text:

> Each of the five RIRs has initiated the deployment of RPKI, and each
>    now offers RPKI services to its members.  A number of countries
>    (Ecuador, Japan, Bangladesh, etc.) have also started to test and
>    deploy RPKI internally.  In order to promote the deployment of RPKI,
>    ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the five
>    RIRs, many NIRs and companies have making continuous efforts to solve
>    the existing problems and improve the corresponding policies and
>    technical standards.

I'm concerned about the loose use of the term 'countries' here. For many
people this can mean 'governments' and, at least in the case in Ecuador,
the Government has nothing to do with this. RPKI deployment is not a
'national' initiative if by national we mean 'sponsored' or 'approved'
by the current Government.

A better way of describing the country-wide deployments could be
something along the lines of:

"Various organizations in different countries like x,y and z have been
working on RPKI testing and deployment in some cases at a country-wide
level"

thanks!

-Carlos

On 7/11/16 12:33 AM, Yu Fu wrote:
> Hi chairs and all,
> 
>  
> 
> We'd like to request a time slot of 10 minutes to discuss a topic of ROA
> mergence as described in draft-yan-sidr-roa-mergence-00.
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yan-sidr-roa-mergence-00
> 
> During the process of ROA issuance, the address space holder needs to
> 
> specify an origin AS for a list of IP prefixes.  Besides, the address
> 
> space holder has a free choice to put multiple prefixes into a single
> 
> ROA or issue separate ROAs for each prefix based on the current
> 
> specification.  This draft analyzes and presents some operational
> 
> problems which may be caused by the misconfigurations of ROAs
> 
> containing multiple IP prefixes. We would like to have a discussion
> 
> in the WG for the suggestions and considerations in this topic.
> 
>  
> 
> Also. We have made an update for the draft-lee-sidr-rpki-deployment-02
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-sidr-rpki-deployment/> based
> on the comments and feedbacks after my presentation at IETF 95 meeting.
> 
> We’d like to request a time slot of 5 minutes to share the update.
> 
>  
> 
> Comments and suggestions are appreciated.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Yu
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: sidr-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:sidr-bounces@ietf.org>
> [mailto:sidr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sandra Murphy
> 
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 5:06 AM
> 
> To: sidr
> 
> Cc: Sandra Murphy
> 
> Subject: [sidr] agenda requests for the Berlin IETF 96 meeting
> 
>  
> 
> Anyone who wishes to discuss a topic at the IETF meeting, please send a
> message to the list and chairs.
> 
>  
> 
> —Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -------------------------------------------
> 
> Yu Fu
> 
> fuyu@cnnic.cn <mailto:fuyu@cnnic.cn>
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
> 