Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

And again, restarting... post meeting and post travel refocusing :)

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Christopher Morrow <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Restarting this thread, with some updates :)
>
> Preparing for Seoul in a few weeks time, with the intent that we do not
> meet face-to-face in Chicago, have all current 'protocol' related docs to
> the IESG/done and meet instead in sidr-ops if there are agenda items at
> that time :)
>
> Currently we have the following in IESG/pub-request status (13 documents):
> draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions
> 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-delta-protocol (10/26 sent forward)


> draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling
> draft-ietf-sidr-publication
> draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-oob-setup
> draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis
>


I had thought I sent validation-reconsidered forward for processing, I'm
doing that today:

> draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered
>

 Currently still active documents (6 documents):

>

> draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover
> draft-ietf-sidr-lta-use-cases
> draft-ietf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light
> draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation
> draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying
> draft-ietf-sidr-slurm
>
> (this reflects the changes since the last email, included below)
>
> I believe we're still planning to move (and have agreement from authors):
>  draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover
>  draft-ietf-sidr-lta-use-cases
>  draft-ietf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light
>  draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying
>

draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation


> which leaves to be dealt with by Chicago 2 documents:
> draft-ietf-sidr-slurm
>
> I think this is good, I believe (and of course I should be corrected if
> wrong)
>   slurm - more work inbound and discussion planned in Seoul
>   tree-validation - I thought moved to sidr-ops, but don't have docs to
> back that up.
>
>
I still think this is good, I will be sending a request to the OPS-AD folk
today to move:
 draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-rollover
 draft-ietf-sidr-lta-use-cases
 draft-ietf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light
 draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying
 draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation

to sidr-ops... If there are corrections/additions please send them along :)

-chris


> -chris
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Chris Morrow <[e-mail]>
> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>>
>
>