Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-00.txt

[Andy Newton <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 6, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Stephen Kent <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Carlos,
> 
> ...
>> Given that S-BGP failed to gain any traction and most people outside the
>> IETF have never heard of it, I don´t think it sets a particularly
>> encouraging precedent.
> You asked why 3779. I explained. The were many reasons why S-BGP
> didn't succeed, but use of 3779 is not likely one of them.
>> There is nothing wrong with the extension, nor with the rules per-se.
>> Some of us believe that 3779 rules are not a good match for this
>> particular problem. They may very well be for other, related, problem
>> domains (whole network transfers come to mind now).
> The SIDR WG began meeting in 2006, I believe. The SIDR arch doc was first posted
> (as an accepted WG I-D) on 2/28/07. It cited 3779 as the basis for the RPKI.

Either the question Carlos has asked is unanswered or the answer is using circular logic. I cannot tell which.

The question was about why, in this effort, we are using 3779 validation rules, and the answer appears to be because a past, failed effort used them. Is there really no technical justification?

> It seems curious to me that it has taken 7 years for senior RIR tech staff to
> determine that there is a problem. You are relatively new to this effort, but what
> is the excuse for your co-authors?

C’mon Steve. You're better than this.

-andy