Re: [Sidrops] 6486bis: referenced object validation

[Benno Overeinder <[e-mail]>]

Hi Job, WG,

On 04/12/2020 13:13, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:44:17AM +0100, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote:
>>> Indeed, I believe you've now captured the essence of why manifests
>>> exists at all. This is what rpki-client & FORT seem to have implemented.
>>
>> I suggested this in August:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/Mldz5a43kPPotslF9bpNz10rysk/
>>
>> I think a lot of this could have been avoided if we had this
>> discussion then, but I welcome this now..
> 
> Looking back I'm at a loss how "a lot of this" really could've been
> avoided. What additional steps or process should I have followed for
> NLNetLabs/RIPE/Cloudflare to sooner understand the problem with their
> implementation choices and encourage those organisations to provide a
> solution to their users?
> 
> As you know, I reported 'this' as a problem in February 2020 to sidrops@

</snip> timeline for brevity.

Your timeline is correct, as far as I have followed the discussions. 
The remark from Tim is meant to be constructive, not defensive.  Not 
looking back, but looking ahead, I want to focus on how we solve issues 
and discuss them in sidrops.  And indeed, if there is an impasse, 
organise a virtual meeting and discuss the matter to make progress.

> The real goal is to keep the network running, where in this context our
> role is to create software for network operators for them to securely
> validate the wishes of the Internet number resource holders.

Agree to that!

Let's keep the good spirit of collaboration and learning together.

Best regards,

-- Benno

-- 
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/