Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-23.txt

[Danny McPherson <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 10, 2012, at 9:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

> with a little work, i can usually understand geoff's.  the above seems
> to spend all of it's power budget on trying to appear erudite, and the
> result is quite unintelligible to at least this st00pid geek.

Erudite is a fine choice of words here, I was hoping it'd 
lead to corrections from those more learned.  I ask that 
you please indulge me Randy, I suspect you've already 
got this all figured out.  

Let me ask a couple questions, that may help me resolve 
my confusions with this.

Do you foresee rpki-rtr being "augmented" for router on-
boarding of additional RPKI-derived data to enable things 
like those provided in the BGPSEC protocol document, e.g., 
S.5 of bgpsec-protocol I-D:

[snip]

5.  Processing a Received BGPSEC Update

   Validation of a BGPSEC update messages makes use of data from RPKI
   certificates and signed Route Origination Authorizations (ROA).  In
   particular, to validate update messages containing the
   BGPSEC_Path_Signatures attribute, it is necessary that the recipient
   have access to the following data obtained from valid RPKI
   certificates and ROAs:

   o  For each valid RPKI end-entity certificate containing an AS Number
      extension, the AS Number, Public Key and Subject Key Identifier
      are required

   o  For each valid ROA, the AS Number and the list of IP address
      prefixes

[/snip]

I labeled these things prospectively [more] volatile than current 
rpki-rtr "stuff", that may or may not be appropriate.
 
If this is the intention, then have you selected the publication 
dates for the documents that "augment" this brand new rpki-rtr 
protocol, I'd like to know when I need to factor those documents 
as well? 

A general observation is that while this piecemeal draft 
progression approach appears well designed to pass IETF 
publication gates, I'm not sure it's optimal for considering 
systemic and inter-dependency implications.

Alas...

> but i think danny is happy with the changes.  and if danny is happy, i
> guess i am.

Excellent...


-danny