[Sidrops] Interim Meeting Follow-up Mail

Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net> Thu, 22 October 2020 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <morrowc@ops-netman.net>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E783A09C6; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wwudjdItuSwM; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:32:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.ops-netman.net (unknown [IPv6:2606:700:e:550:5c82:28ff:fe4c:9503]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10E753A09C1; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.ops-netman.net (mail.ops-netman.net [199.168.90.119]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by relay.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A56693C2302; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:32:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mailserver.ops-netman.net.ops-netman.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EFC223D; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:32:10 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:32:10 +0000
Message-ID: <87zh4ekvz9.wl-morrowc@ops-netman.net>
From: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>
To: sidrops@ietf.org, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org,sidrops-ads@ietf.org
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.2 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Organization: Operations Network Management, Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/DpEH_EU-ovgRa1d7GBFo1QdWpZU>
Subject: [Sidrops] Interim Meeting Follow-up Mail
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:32:14 -0000

First, apologies for this being so tardy :(
Second, thanks for attending the interim on 10/01/2020 (Oct 1st) and
bearing with me/us in the conversation.

Now, at the end of the meeting (which I thought was 1hr in, but was
really 2hr in) I said I'd send out a mail to discuss two items:

  1) Being clear about impacts/repercussions related to the
     decision process being put forth for 6486bis:
       a) There will be repositories that disappear when they can't
          get their content straight at publication time.
	  
       b) Repeated failures at a CA/PublicationPoint(PP) will
          eventually lead to that CA/PP's routing intent falling back
	  to 'not found'.
	  
       c) In some circumstances (tim pointed these out I believe)
          if the CA/PP is a leaf below another CA/PP which publishes
	  ROA for covering routes, the leaf CA/PP's routing intent
	  may change to INVALID.
	  
	  ie: RIR -> LIR -> end-user
	    if the LIR publises 8.0.0.0/8 - AS64600
	    if the end-user publishes 8.8.0.0/16 AS64601
            if the end-user CA/PP expires
	      (for any reason, but specifically collection problems)
            the end-user prefixes will become invalid.

       d) There are some ordering/rollout/planning concerns related
          to new object types in the repository which either need
	  to be worked out in the bis OR noted and pushed to the next
	  new object proposal.
	  I think the authors are clear that: "for next proposal"
	  I think the meeting participants seemed split, but that at least:
	    "Hey, note that adding new objects will be different... pay attention!"
	  should end up in the bis document.

  2) Closing up the -bis conversation/document prior to december
     The current author set has an expiry timer, we can either finish up 'now'
     or hand-over reins at/after the F2F meeting + edit time.


I'd like to get some closure on these, ideally, before the f2f in ~3wks time.

-chris
co-chair-persona