Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

Christopher Morrow <> Wed, 07 September 2016 02:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7981612B4FA for <>; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 19:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ji5T7lw4r448 for <>; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 19:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AFED12B4C4 for <>; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 19:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v123so2524559qkh.2 for <>; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 19:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=s+/F4eLrAtd97dgRcOHsC1pdZmK2QRKl3oOGs3FOc58=; b=UM7fRYnDaDdnvhdRtY/o3+EGhLr9aqS8ZvLWFBsYzEXPK0P5bO7nT0pvhSP5G9gPuT fZjbUUAlcJt8ZCrcSYREE+2p/g4eNSTlxozJoMVbPnEnjVHXtKdRUHlurDipjjNJZbQm WSxB9PJd4ZgxOLwhhSk2mDeAlftkev469ogHBoItC2i9uftp3b0bynn8KKTqKaw9MM7M IjDSco0Ua32sU5BqHR8n49pMsgE5rDd4twqTzbinl1y9WsunvHaQ52se9UTzWxQ5/FgG oteHuwXBE/wmAbxuGhWZtIMX8VI3skSj4Bdqrsl8pMfWrNfsqnS95FfEdm/rki/oLhI+ 0q/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=s+/F4eLrAtd97dgRcOHsC1pdZmK2QRKl3oOGs3FOc58=; b=HJ5fEOFpuh0eM/Bnlaw6j2lwuu15utodkqUO8fBAwOslekd60FdQhxXt5PS7FdD3cD LjxZm6jzasAsntRxYqMz1NVEkaKUF/DHfzPz5YlR0nfBKe37RGffus3+XMvcwJAsLvJU Mtt+qdWgcodb1yLvtGOd+0A0Ue7CRxxSIA+7binaUdOaDywiLj39ubWBSBt83yV9+A+w Zpv6vCv6m+Qn8P8vWGotDeOTlAbCvdYyxexO5TA667nlj4G3nt9KAoT53PNcsMhXnPjw Tq5h0OfXfGbJ3hzYl+r+HpTQtSLoWT2IJoACI+cD9MPlqxSV+lB+3cXfVgTGd6vhi7iu V4NQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNXWbzniNTddqHKyDy7cR/Ayd3ZnLnMqSYz4QcRa+8MAgqAGntOISfmfvOVGhEDTLRTEcHdBQB5tMG33w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s127mr51880634qkf.166.1473216488272; Tue, 06 Sep 2016 19:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 19:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Christopher Morrow <>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 22:48:07 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: EIIlNAVlI924QsiceZ23RvMqlN0
Message-ID: <>
To: Rob Austein <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0438f875f942053be1f142"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 02:48:10 -0000

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Rob Austein <> wrote:

> I guess one question here is the purpose of publishing this document:
> a) If the purpose of asking the WG to publish is a hope that the WG
>    will agree that this is a good idea, then I'm with Randy and Steve
>    in the "hell no" camp.
(note, I do not care for this message about politics)

we're here because, I think, from the top down to the RIR there isn't a
hierarchy being created, right? the RIR folk are saying: "Ok, you all want
this thing, but upstairs hasn't created the root, so we're going to do the
best we can with making a root each that allows us to xfer between RIRs.
This is how it's being done, so you have some docs about the mechanics
involved and can build/guide from there"

is that not the case? (again, I don't care about the politics)

> b) If the purpose is to document something that the RIRs have
>    unilaterally decided to do whether the IETF likes it or not, I
>    guess we should thank them for documenting their intentions, and
>    publish it with a big IETF / IESG disclaimer saying that it's a
>    really bad idea but not something the IETF can prevent.  I suppose
>    we could refuse to publish entirely in this case, but suspect that
>    just makes it harder for newcomers to understand what happened.
> My understanding was that we were already well into case (b) territory.