Re: [sidr] Agenda Upload

At Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:22:34 +0100,
Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> > On 08 Nov 2016, at 00:26, Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Draft Agenda was uploaded moments ago.
> > 
> > I'm sure I missed something(s)
> > 
> > I'm also sure I signed Tim up for at least 2 things he wasn't prepared
> > for (and may not be required)
> 
> I see one item with my name, and two others that might have my name implied. 

noting that i said: 'draft agenda' :)

> 
> As far as I am concerned I don't need to talk about any of them. But

I'm happy to yield time back to the randy-proposed-content, it's also
interesting to me.

> if the WG feels differently I am happy to - then I would like a bit
> more guidance though on what to address exactly. Quoting below:
> 
> > 3- RRDP/HTTPS - Tim Bruijnzeels                   15 min
> 
> The document went through last call and was sent to the IESG on 26
> October. If the WG feels it's useful to give an overview of this
> work once more then I can certainly do so - but I expect it's not
> needed and it's better to use face to face time for other things. Of
> course I would be more than happy to discuss this work in person as
> well.
> 
> > 4- Updates to ROA/BGPSEC Router Cert Profiles     20 min
> 
> I am confused by this item. Is this because of the updates to these
> documents we included in reconsidered, which is #6?
> 
> > 6- Validation Reconsidered mish/mash              10 min
> 
> We went through last call, and then I indicated I would be more
> confident if people reviewed the ASN.1 and OID changes. Sean Turner
> did a quick check - thanks :) I want to be really careful here and
> not take a seat on the chair, but.. it seems to me that unclarities
> and concerns were addressed.
> 

excellent. (I agree things seem settled)

> If not, then I am of course willing to talk about this once more,
> but would ask the WG to be specific about which aspect should be
> re-discussed or presented.
> 

let's skip your bits then and concentrate on the newly proposed
interop discussion.

> > it's a draft :)
> 
> no worries, appreciated.
> 
> One other thing that I may want to discuss is the future of
> tree-validation. Not so much the content, but the idea of having (a)
> document(s) in this WG (or SIDR-OPS in future) that describes a
> specific implementation. There are two issues: 1) implementation is
> a moving target, so we will need updates in future, 2) the
> implementation is not generic (would individual submission be more
> appropriate? WG feedback was very valuable).
> 

happy to add this to the 'draft agenda'.

> We recently uploaded a version that reflects our 2.23 validator
> implementation. We indicated that we want to go for last-call on
> this as soon as possible (I understand that IETF process will mean
> this will probably be after Seoul). And we indicated that for future
> updates we plan to document small changes just as notes in the
> README/RELEASE NOTES of the code, but that we would seek to document
> more substantial changes through the IETF again in future.
> 
> My questions to the WG would be: = Does the proposal make sense to
> you?  = Do you agree that these documents can be WG documents?  - We
> value the feedback - We include the feedback in the document -
> currently in security considerations - BUT the content of the
> document reflects actual implementation, not desired implementation.
> = Is there a useful parallel to IETF documents describing other
> open-source implementations?
> 
> ..or -- I have a preference for having RFCs for this, because I
> think the review will be more thorough and independent, but -- we
> can also just discuss this in the WG, but not as an IETF document,
> and then just include the documents with our validator releases
> instead?
> 
> 

this bit does sound like good topic for the meeting discusion.
let's add this to the 'draft agenda' as well. (as i say above)

> 
> Cheers
> Tim
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > -chris
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > sidr mailing list
> > sidr@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr