IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation-02

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sat, 04 August 2018 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
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 01AC0130E03; Sat, 4 Aug 2018 10:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 UMrelFE6LlhW; Sat, 4 Aug 2018 10:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 641E5130E36; Sat, 4 Aug 2018 10:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1fm00N-0003er-BU; Sat, 04 Aug 2018 17:06:15 +0000
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2018 10:06:14 -0700
Message-ID: <m2k1p612pl.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Linda Dunbar <Linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, sidrops@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation.all@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <153332707807.18413.5304119074828612207@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <153332707807.18413.5304119074828612207@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/25.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
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/mADXk1Za1IWyQJivXRFmO5CcgyE>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-tree-validation-02
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Sat, 04 Aug 2018 17:06:24 -0000

> why the implementation description has to be an RFC? clog up the RFCs

because this is engineering, not academic research; no requirement for
original contribution.  having the workings of a protocol implementation
well documented helps others interoperate, gives them ideas for their
own implementations, ...  we have a long trail of vendorX's
implementation of coffee ice cream.  it is helpful.

< insert snark comparison to 342 'bright ideas' about how to get one's
  name on an rfc for useless work >

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email