[Sidrops] WG-ADOPTION: draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01 - ENDS: 2019-03-12 (mar 12)

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 27 February 2019 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6B7130E69 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:27:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3FGV12mtLmBD for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:27:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D25B12D4EB for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:27:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8A8E3004AA for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:09:31 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net []) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id rBnPXl_u4og8 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:09:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (unknown []) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81435300460 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:09:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7D9BD9D0-B69A-427C-96EF-4A766C6A0A2F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:27:46 -0500
References: <m2fts968ei.wl-randy@psg.com>
To: sidrops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <m2fts968ei.wl-randy@psg.com>
Message-Id: <BD686FC4-58B7-48FC-85EC-EEC5C2F30B53@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/sUtNT0xLkfNuskaoVoY5LvDRn3M>
Subject: [Sidrops] WG-ADOPTION: draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01 - ENDS: 2019-03-12 (mar 12)
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: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:27:52 -0000

This seems to be a proposal for documenting why the marking is something other that valid or invalid.  I can see why a researcher might care about those differences, but I cannot see how an operator would make use of it.  I do not think we should add complexity.


> Howdy WG folks!
> At the Bangkok meeting Oliver asked that we push forward:
>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01>
> for WG Adoption, the abstract is:
>   "In case operators decide not to evaluate BGP route prefixes according
>    to RPKI route origin validation (ROV), none of the available states
>    as specified in RFC 6811 do properly represent this decision. This
>    document introduces "Unverified" as well-defined validation state
>    which allows to properly identify route prefixes as not evaluated
>    according to RPKI route origin validation."
> and some brief 2wk period of discussion and such should now ensue!
> Thanks!
> -chris
> co-chair.