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

Christopher Morrow <> Thu, 22 April 2021 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44663A1133 for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8lKmzRXpcHH0 for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E4C63A1130 for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s4so6691558qtw.3 for <>; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r2Z3l5Z4qYh1S68YFn7i2ajR1hw0rOOjAcF5v/STtk4=; b=ig4J8/sFCUldvO6rq+poMokTkf/VgPnE3GM/PtGJlKpTdgMOMDVwcnKBXB5/ZNLzwM C6jbfCNKlfq9hak6TY34yEKmS2jypoiXVawPMmwztMxsa90CzCLB+2z6syZ9b+utuLMC cU37m8U04elDsnoA+GD+cOxyVUcrqA6Z6mMuHLJWvKS5WGV6J7j7V8AiQd28cBuGallV ycT5odj1TdSEHxW4JkO/qRbqepvTEFawx12VFQEb89TH/ziW6IOKHAAr80nVZywexU2D Ew6DNZNbT7Tr74UJ0HF4rwaZkOiDDKvRFZVxuA0RiKkDb+OQ3I8FbHQPGeOFcYNZBYWV YAHw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r2Z3l5Z4qYh1S68YFn7i2ajR1hw0rOOjAcF5v/STtk4=; b=Bd/3UtOM5mFeVmg67aWXL12xtnXSIV6J9Qsixzp9hu5u38LO703fhXMGGB8wXwTUs5 moSEig6vWAPs6tkd4hL6fYcrsjjoMEU+rx4I+BUVKFJr+mBSKD64UJGXexJQmHTVlibJ PJ/Kfru767pVgRo7lX8UtmF04UblhvkFFEUJNpfzOrg39MQ+Ubng7Vf+9PJQ+UcuLRsh FcYX/sObf5Vz5D01BY+h4FmtPlZ+S0/Oak1YVYWKaIsBM29sP3kQ9n1KxVuPk8wZcK/m t+XpesGEzbhexDWxOU+1mLWp0bTb9cG3tr8rxgRrKXbCMAnUF2ljoE/qCUK0HnGuJrlC 0C/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530klbDwZF6glLCIq9xLDleyQe88Fuy0eVkqAJkF1aarJXnkDVb2 8atMo7fQwIqEPIwzGXoqsD9jXhz/+MxEMRZDmtAq4FGm3QA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlLC69eOCiyvt7i4Hm1c5Su7uN2c3pzDa124ti+3KIcDcJ3fzak1bWFBcI59pzfCTg2dQHpFDLxhGHg7C23/M=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:46d6:: with SMTP id h22mr4340809qto.315.1619114412132; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <YEjILk/5hwwX/x9P@snel> <> <YEjrr9IKijX1+5We@snel> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Christopher Morrow <>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:59:53 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Nick Hilliard <>
Cc: Randy Bush <>, SIDR Operations WG <>, Job Snijders <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000062cc9605c0937340"
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 18:00:19 -0000

nick got me before done...

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 1:54 PM Nick Hilliard <> wrote:

> 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?)
I believe the process we were pitched when SIDR was --'d from existence was:
  "If you (sidrops) see a problem, you should write a document that serves
    as the problem description and requirement for fix-action. Take the
    to IDR, who'll promptly do the 3-stooges: "not it" maneuver and hand us
off to
    the AD who will SIDR++ and then we can chat about the problem in the
    venue, with possible protocol changes documented/implemented there."

I was proposing that the current document under discussion seems like the:
  "there is a  problem, we have a requirement to fix it, kthxbi!"

> > 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?