Re: [sidr] WG adoption poll for draft-huston-rpki-validation-01

Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net> Tue, 29 April 2014 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@ripe.net>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C64C01A090B for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:48:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ORcXyDTi359s for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from koko.ripe.net (koko.ripe.net [193.0.19.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F201A08F0 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nene.ripe.net ([193.0.23.10]) by koko.ripe.net with esmtps (UNKNOWN:AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1WfAGt-0003Il-VJ; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:48:41 +0200
Received: from s258-sslvpn-1.ripe.net ([193.0.20.231] helo=vpn-67.ripe.net) by nene.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1WfAGt-0003qL-R8; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:48:39 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <BBA7CCE4-1A6C-4D06-A5DC-54B93A1D2202@tislabs.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:48:38 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <54275034-A619-4228-ACD1-B99402649BBE@ripe.net>
References: <BBA7CCE4-1A6C-4D06-A5DC-54B93A1D2202@tislabs.com>
To: Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -3.6 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000]
X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a0719b2b8be220e2ef88277b662b525607342
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/hXLvA4L5VWSJx-PKLEvVeaq5poY
Cc: "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] WG adoption poll for draft-huston-rpki-validation-01
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:48:44 -0000

Hi,

I read the draft and I support adoption.

I think this addresses a real problem both in the transfer case described in the document, and in fragility wrt unintended changes in the hierarchical RPKI. This could be considered bad CA ops, but even then I think the impact on the children should be reduced. Furthermore, as a general approach I agree with the proposed model.

I understand this is a deviation from the existing RFC3779 validation algorithms that are currently implemented (obviously the point of this proposal), but while this will therefore require work to implement I see absolutely no problems doing so in the RP tool that we maintain. For what it's worth I think our work for this can be counted in days tops.


Tim



On Apr 25, 2014, at 6:05 PM, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> wrote:

> The authors of draft-huston-rpki-validation-01.txt, RPKI Validation Reconsidered, have requested wg adoption.
> 
> See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huston-rpki-validation-01.
> 
> Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg adopting this as a work item.  You do not need to comment on the content of this draft at this time.  You are asked to indicate if you think that this is work that the wg should be doing and whether this draft is an acceptable starting point.  Adding whether you can/will review or not is useful.
> 
> Note that active support is required for adoption.  Silence is a vote against adoption.
> 
> This adoption call will end on 9 May 2014.
> 
> --Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr