Re: [sidr] revision to draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

On 30/07/2009, at 8:59 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:

> WG Chair hat off
>
> It is my impression from the WG discussion at IETF 75 on the  
> interpretation of a ROA that there is a common view that a ROA acts  
> as an implicit "denial" for those route objects that have address  
> prefixes that are more specific than the set of prefixes specified  
> in the ROA, and for those route objects which have originating AS  
> numbers other than those listed in valid ROAs that span the address  
> prefix listed in the route object.
>
> I therefore propose to the WG that I will resubmit draft-huston-sidr- 
> roa-validation-01.txt as draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-02.txt on  
> the basis that this appears to be consistent with the discussion I  
> have just heard in the WG meeting this morning.
>
> thanks,.
>
> Geoff
>

As co-author of the draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation I also observe that  
the WG has no interest in pursuing a BOA based model (an explicit  
denial structure) and that the revised draft therefore aligns with  
people's expectations in documenting the validation process.

-George