Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops

"George, Wes" <> Mon, 14 November 2011 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB7911E8227 for <>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:40:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.867
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.867 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.596, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CuRgz5MkvJiH for <>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70DBB11E8225 for <>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:40:53 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,506,1315195200"; d="scan'208";a="296945973"
Received: from unknown (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 14 Nov 2011 01:36:26 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:40:52 -0500
From: "George, Wes" <>
To: Christopher Morrow <>, Danny McPherson <>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:41:15 -0500
Thread-Topic: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops
Thread-Index: AcyilrQgCCqXhWqXSdiw4amAJdRIrQAANsuQ
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: sidr wg list <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 06:40:54 -0000

> From:

> there were a slew of changes (or a slew of comments made) requested, a
> document update happened ~13 days ago, did the changes account for the
> comments/requests or not?

[WEG] I diffed 11 and 12 when 12 came out, and no, not really. As I recall, Shane already replied that the proposed text (that made it into -12) was not adequate in explaining rationale around the recommendation of "close" for RPKI cache placement, among other things. (cf. emails on 10/31). Don't know if additional changes are pending for -13 based on those comments, but the mail thread died on the 31st with no further responses.

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.