Re: [Sidrops] request for call for Working Group adoption draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update

Job Snijders <> Tue, 27 April 2021 11:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A033A10E3 for <>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rNZ5K2Ka0FT for <>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 980C63A10D7 for <>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i24so9908233edy.8 for <>; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:24:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=vvOWXwxucPkPH4l5tLOYe2SE/gABfVo3sVKA2kgspXM=; b=I6BymXOqkzbW9Q+rhLIsstdvSc8P753acuDQpHksEnS5lgRIUXEwvr9E+M2CRgMeXT aAyfdcyUmq0oZVCeqqAhjbDc9z+xdlGxzRQ6n/5yS3Q70IJL/yS6ViPDTFvn3bexOvlz 062beJCSJT2CiZTf3sQ4y5jo2D1gR32CEzjSc=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=vvOWXwxucPkPH4l5tLOYe2SE/gABfVo3sVKA2kgspXM=; b=dswD1uW8msnjDY23TuGQkGa9jibJcohvnBBs8c7cSiyO+4tQgj1B/jLumOr0ZfOlXw daA4zc5pGubEpn0LRwIFpAQc8SApWx0I6Zy4XRI061UQPCL0UMA44U6aBaozxTTOA8eY 3JveI5z3YGDjHT6IOYqPFnOmYxh6XACXOQnFeZ3/Wt8TzRwRMzYmPPUtmX+IvVWGGtbW /wwJP8oXCv3nAEcwstwDhSMJV8j+1yUiEu6FFsEWLSsAZCGbg8/91GJ+RFD3Zr2tdL3y QZSbt9sGeOW3y6mhP1xsGyiDxd7IRj+4SjyDM8shck41RvA8S5Z/Uip30AJdPmhYad+w Cqcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Cw0+X9TlOQlIj7CXqfmW+vac1zqRU35XCCx8ZRylqdkMWb888 pZdye8zM+BbIax7BjjPEyZmaoQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyswnWhSKrGHA2lIIYjf5iDq/8eaoRajr5BqdxEb5nrxApj9lMRJMCOhJIhCKKQaQord2Bwrw==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:db0c:: with SMTP id t12mr3659909eds.72.1619522656542; Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from snel ( []) by with ESMTPSA id rs8sm4810803ejb.17.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 27 Apr 2021 04:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 13:24:12 +0200
From: Job Snijders <>
To: Nick Hilliard <>
Cc: Christopher Morrow <>, Randy Bush <>, SIDR Operations WG <>
Message-ID: <YIf0XC6dLX7h6k4S@snel>
References: <YEjILk/5hwwX/x9P@snel> <> <YEjrr9IKijX1+5We@snel> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] request for call for Working Group adoption draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 11:24:25 -0000

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 06:54:35PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> The proposal doesn't seem to be horrible, several software stacks have
> implemented it _and_ the rpki hasn't fallen over yet, so it seems like
> so far, it's not a regression and it seems to fix something, so ...
> yay?

Small point of correction, as far as I know none of the validators is
applying the 'new' algorithm to 'old' codepoints. None of the validators
merged code to do so into their main branch.

We provided these 3 code changesets for illustration purposes, to make
it clear that the 9 pages of hard-to-read document update shuffle work,
the ask to validator implementers actually is quite straight-forward and
easy to implement (if the community chooses to do so).

I fully expect each validator implemeter to want to do additional
refactoring/cleanup rather than verbatim copy+paste the above 3

There is no deployed code, but the 3 links make it clear it is trivial
to get to a state of deployed code.

In order for validation implementers to adopt something similar to the
above changesets, some in the community requested an internet-draft
exists to reference. Making changes of this nature without an at least
an internet-draft existing would be detrimental to the cohesion of the

Kind regards,