Re: [Sidrops] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-03: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <> Wed, 13 February 2019 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1962128B33; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:55:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 g7DN7xPqyrXD; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:55:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A56B81292F1; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:55:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id n71so6070805ota.10; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:55:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BNInO07TmnQiYs8O+ukf1gCCDK6huTSO9OKHHqyre3U=; b=tLIXJSLq5dHsI7kWva7Oq+gnUGgciLStq3oeL9arzeDlpJ4rmK8y2rRI47mzwz4l/X d5Ez24dgD93t+zUMxS0FasFMfEgpJ/4ttz8wwOV09KWMvINaHzbI5EY06SdyAxcXtDcn gMkYgJVkIQgIjki2YnMiDT5gPEFuuNOxkK0gWhyLXAtrpOHykGeM6R1DANbF/KA0GIv2 ph9mttJht0nN0r/4IMAqpH1PgCkjFK8JwRvbi8PkCGmMTT8J/cbP9EQ4uZLYNz+hldsG n/N3nVg+ojUalO9tsAXPGhisf+ZUn3dFnUM7XRT+00/KmcT0lL8rzTAo+MdOaaIDZcYp Wkbw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BNInO07TmnQiYs8O+ukf1gCCDK6huTSO9OKHHqyre3U=; b=I5Es80weAbCe3qjmeOXXf+4odQ/DCVLhaJgm92RWNL/xA77DWjO8/5P1dlrZQ84xfu jaRHYB/0UhB9ou3oDYz/EJD44xQe6OAUHsmcP5hCjE4rOE/osNbczPHZJF/eZZPItiQu To1iBh93OXD303JDSRgQyGsAAZN/7PQMRW+pJQxuBQ0lymru5L1eODimXjmwMkFPTcYm rznZn46vvNVp4x+mtB8XOa92QgxxPiKMV7iyJc1bxZCw9rEWTNQC53tIh6IDlTMfu1Hu 7/MXpi9+NfTvGFBXhAvuUCnr+83ha8jfRQ+UFYdpqhktr7GD5QY1ULtsHDhxdLgXAcPP EO3Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZ4bQQncDVMB3Z5GO9t4A/sosimRJWjilh8c5E/OrEIUuerOjXS FkNPGNuE0grzJv0PFIVRxXVvWrDx29a2qBK+p0o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbDkUzAjtv/dTucTvOfuACBnTMQg+ZVb9aVfy7Xjj1clrVQ6ww6TS1XCfh3OXh9FPgDoBfxIpZs/Be+PdkELfQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:282:: with SMTP id 2mr1174490otl.287.1550084153368; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:55:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:55:52 -0500
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:55:52 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Sean Turner <>
Cc: SIDROps Chairs <>, Chris Morrow <>, SIDR Operations WG <>, The IESG <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000556bc40581cb17b4"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-03: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:55:58 -0000

On February 12, 2019 at 9:25:33 PM, Sean Turner ( wrote:



> On Jan 23, 2019, at 12:46 <http://airmail.calendar/2019-01-23 12:46:00
EST>, Alvaro Retana <> wrote:


> (1) I don't really have a strong objection for this document being a BCP.
> However, while documenting two different methods, there is no clear
> of "what is believed to be the best" [rfc2026], or even better, which
> should be used in what situations. I understand that operators have
> preferences/needs and that prescribing one method as the default in not
> right thing to do.
> I would really like to see some text (maybe a "Deployment Considerations"
> section) that talks about when one or the other might be

Right so I am hoping that Randy’s answer helped here. The only thing I will
add is that it really depends on what gear you buy so in some sense I am
kind of wobbly on whether we should pick one.

I’m not sure which of Randy’s messages you’re referring to, but I would
this related reply (to the RtgDir review): "we do not tell operators how to
run their networks. for example many will choose operator driven because it
allows them to quickly swap new gear for a failed device without backflow
into the rpki. "

I’m not asking you to pick one…or to declare one to be the default/best..

I’m hoping that you can provide some guidance on the pros/cons of using one
method or another in different scenarios.  Maybe you say that if the right
hw is present then one method might be better…or you might say (as above)
that one method is better for some operational cases….

In any case, just a non-blocking comment. :-)