[Sidrops] Re: New draft and IETF Hackathon project on RPKI RP incremental validation

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 3:51 PM Job Snijders
<job=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 03:23:40PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > Is changing the draft from Standards-Track to Informational enough to
> > assuage your concerns? Would changing the draft's intent to categorize
> > and provide test outputs for N different specified optimizations also
> > be a useful outcome?
>
> I think I agree with Mikhail ... changing the track doesn't really help
> here. This type of content is more of a "blog post" or "for (SIDROPS)
> wiki" articles.
>

seems fair, I didn't really disagree with Mikhail so much as was asking
if a different form of the work would be helpful.

>
> On the topic of performance, in the same vein -
>
<snip>> I think information like this is quickly outdated, the 'state of the
> art' is a moving target. The authors of this version of the proposal
> even conceded this particular approach has some downsides.

i agree with this, I think some research into the space seems handy I'm not
sure (either) that an RFC helps that... and yea, of course we get more
cpu / acceleration / etc as we go along.

I didn't see, really, if the problem being solved was of the form:
  "My 1U, 20 core, 256GB ram server doing the RP function
  can not handle the 10 minute cycle time, so I need to do
  work in my RP code to get to the next goal of 5 min revalidations"

"what problem are we solving here?" (I should/could have asked it that way)