Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

Carlos,

I guess what the RIRs are going to do is to create a CA hierarchy:
RIR_CA_0/0_(probably a hidden HSM) ‹> RIR_CA_RIR_RESOURCES (online HSM) ‹>
member_CA

This means that not much changed from the current situation multiple
self-signed certs, other than instead of getting the list of resources for
each RIR from the first CA certificated, I need to fetch the second level
CA cert.

Is this how you plan to implement this change?

Regards,
Roque

‹ 
Roque Gagliano
Tail-f Solutions Architect Southern Europe
+41 76 449 8867

On 06/09/16 00:54, "sidr on behalf of Carlos M. Martinez"
<sidr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:

>Here is the pointer to the document:
>
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rir-rpki-allres-ta-app-statement-01
>
>Apologies for my earlier laziness.
>
>On 9/5/2016 3:32 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>> 
>> I know we already discussed this over private email, but perhaps you can
>> comment on the list on the future of the requested WG adoption call for
>> the Œall resources¹ applicability statement draft.
>> 
>> thanks!
>> 
>> -Carlos
>> 
>> On 2 Sep 2016, at 17:56, Chris Morrow wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> Howdy SIDR peeps,
>>> (+bonus ops ad)
>>>
>>> Following on the Berlin meeting we were trying to accomplish two
>>> things:
>>>
>>>   1) get all documents related to sidr protocols into wglc and then
>>>   publication
>>>
>>>   2) get all documents which are more operationally focused moved
>>>   along to an ops group (sidr-ops or something akin to that)
>>>
>>> With that in mind there are 8 documents in the publication queue:
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis
>>>
>>> and 11 still in progress. Of the 11 left Sandy and I think they
>>> roughly break down like:
>>>
>>> Documents which should move to the ops group:
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-lta-use-cases
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light - authors notified/queried
>>> about this
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying
>>>
>>> documents which should finish out in sidr:
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-publication
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup - pub request in flight
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-slurm - authors recently updated
>>>   draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions - wglc imminent
>>>
>>> I think if there's no meaningful discussion on change for these
>>> between now and 9/16/2016 (Sept 16th) we will assume this list is
>>> correct. For documents in the 'move' list, if progress to publication
>>> happens 'good!'. For all documents in the 'stays' list:
>>>   1) we aim to have wglc by Seoul
>>>   2) publication requests started on as many as possible
>>>
>>> We plan to meet in Seoul, but not in Chicago (Mar 2017) where we
>>> expect the ops group to exist and meet. We can progress documents in
>>> SIDR after Seoul, but the WG should close out shortly after the new
>>> year. (or that's the goal).
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>> -chris
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sidr mailing list
>>> sidr@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>
>_______________________________________________
>sidr mailing list
>sidr@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr