IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] WG Adoption call for draft-madi-sidrops-rp-adoption

Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net> Wed, 11 October 2017 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@ripe.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 8E0AE13430D for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham 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 6L4BZq15Y7uN for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from molamola.ripe.net (molamola.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1371]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47BEC13318B for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nene.ripe.net ([193.0.23.10]) by molamola.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1e2Geg-000Ay3-Hj; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:02:35 +0200
Received: from sslvpn.ripe.net ([193.0.20.230] helo=vpn-36.ripe.net) by nene.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1e2Geg-0000AE-Dk; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:02:34 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAKr6gn2unMCXn+3nOHOtv39XYCEbj=c3MoqBhZXAkVDYL20uLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:02:34 +0200
Cc: "sidrops@ietf.org" <sidrops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EE7DF05F-BE25-415E-BFD4-57613D2C3E73@ripe.net>
References: <CB3C3CD7-AE5E-4267-9E56-C55229D8BADA@arrcus.com> <CAKr6gn2unMCXn+3nOHOtv39XYCEbj=c3MoqBhZXAkVDYL20uLA@mail.gmail.com>
To: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-ACL-Warn: Delaying message
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: -------
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -7.5 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -7.5 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a07199d500ddde84106088ccd7c253744c121
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/PHqQ4725eFJR1L2gL4C-0zXX3nU>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] WG Adoption call for draft-madi-sidrops-rp-adoption
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:02:43 -0000

Hi all,

As an RP implementer a document like this would have been useful to me years ago. Right now I have reached the stage where I don’t need this anymore. That said I can see a use for it for other people who are new to RPKI joining a team that works on RPKI, or starting a vanilla RPKI RP implementation. E.g. it will allow me to ask someone new in my team to read this first, and then we can have a whiteboard discussion on the details not covered here.. The main issue that I see with it is that it will get out of date, and it can be interpreted as a complete overview of what RPs need to do. I would be much more comfortable with it if it’s made abundantly clear that it’s intended as a not-authoritative starting point to help new people working RP software to learn about the standards. If that can be the direction of the document then I support, and am willing to review.

Tim




> On 11 Oct 2017, at 08:27, George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> wrote:
> 
> We have a tradition in the IETF (as I understand it) of writing
> clarifying documents to bring together the normative from the
> discrete, different places it lies in, and therefore clarify what
> must, must not, and may be done and the implications in each case.
> It's been done in other contexts. Why not here?
> 
> So I have no problem with the WG taking on that kind of work. I don't
> "do" routing and I've never written relying-party code, I don't think
> my review is going to add much because I lack the critical eye in that
> regard.
> 
> Life is confusing enough without having open questions about the
> canonical reading of a bunch of disparate documents written by
> different authors at different times.
> 
> -George
> 
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Keyur Patel <keyur@arrcus.com> wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The authors have requested SIDROPS working group adoption call of
>> draft-madi-sidrops-rp-adoption, “Requirements for Resource Public Key
>> Infrastructure (RPKI) Relying Parties”. Please send your comments to the
>> list.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This adoption call will conclude on Oct 25 2017.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Chris & Keyur
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sidrops mailing list
>> Sidrops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> Sidrops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email