Re: [Sidrops] request for call for Working Group adoption draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update

Nick Hilliard <> Thu, 22 April 2021 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C31D3A10B0 for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8s6PMKGWcUb9 for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBFD73A10AA for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crumpet.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 13MHsa4k096960 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 18:54:37 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be crumpet.local
To: Christopher Morrow <>
Cc: Randy Bush <>, SIDR Operations WG <>, Job Snijders <>
References: <YEjILk/5hwwX/x9P@snel> <> <YEjrr9IKijX1+5We@snel> <> <> <>
From: Nick Hilliard <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 18:54:35 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.47
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] request for call for Working Group adoption draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:54:48 -0000

Christopher Morrow wrote on 22/04/2021 18:46:
> Not a lot of follow on this... (well, public follow up)
> So, I propose this course of action:
>    1) this document serves as a 'requirement (and possible solution)' 
> that sidrops used to identify a problem
>    2) send this along as a query/question to the protocol group (IDR) 
> with a request to:
>       a) say: "go forth, this change seems ok, it's small and such"
>       b) say: "Good googley-moogley! what are you crazypants people on 
> about?? of COURSE this needs to be reviewed... please have AD-foobar 
> spin up SIDR to properly handle this!! TUT-TUT! How cloud you conceive 
> of a world other than this!!"
>        and answer back in 2wks time, one fort-night! and two farthings! 
> (or something, farthings are metric)

do we need to involve IDR?  Hard to tell really. Will they get upset if 
they aren't consulted?  (+ will they get ideas if they are?)

> provided no one screams at me about this WHILE I WRITE THE NEXT EMAIL.. 
> we can send an adoption call/etc in 2wks time OR jump back into our SIDR 
> pantsuit and get to the business of business.

sounds good.  The proposal doesn't seem to be horrible, several software 
stacks have implemented it _and_ the rpki hasn't fallen over yet, so it 
seems like so far, it's not a regression and it seems to fix something, 
so ... yay?