Subject: Re: [Sidrops] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-sidrops-signed-tal-14

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2024 10:51:14 +0100

On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 10:34:06AM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 03:34:50PM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
> > >> Some time ago I implemented support for validating Signed TAL
> > >> (.tak) objects in OpenBSD's rpki-client validator. I found the
> > >> availability of a testbed as provided by the authors of this
> > >> document very helpful. 
> > > 
> > > Are you aware of any other implementations? Did you do
> > > interoperability testing. This information will be useful for the
> > > shepherd write-up.
> > 
> > I should have also said that I am aware of the information of Section
> > 13 of the draft. I am asking whether there is anything additional
> > since the draft was published in September 2023.
> 
> I did interop testing between the APNIC and rpki-client implementations.
> Back in 2022, Tom Harrison and myself went back and forth a few times to
> ensure our respective implementations and the draft were all aligned.
> 
> I'm not aware of new Signed TAL developments since September 2023 (I
> think it was around that time the suggestion was brought forward to
> start a WGLC), but perhaps the draft authors know more than I do?

Russ, should the SIDROPS chairs not be entirely convinced enough
implementation work was done to comply with Standards Track
implementation requirement, the draft's status could be marked as
"Waiting for Implementation"

>From https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/help/state/draft-stream-ietf/

    """
    Waiting for Implementation

    In some areas, it can be desirable to wait for multiple interoperable
    implementations before progressing a draft to be an RFC, and in some
    WGs this is required. This state should be entered after WG Last
    Call has completed.
    """

It might be good to hear back from at least one other implementation
effort.

Kind regards,

Job