Re: [Sidrops] what to do when the CRL is hosed?

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

credit where due department:

> As a network operator, yes, I expect to have the flexibility of
> configuring my network using local policy.  But in the context of the
> RPKI, we need to reach a point where all RFC-compliant RPs will
> generate identical sets of VRPs when presented with the same input.
> There will be reasons why I may prefer to operate one RP over another,
> but the VRPs that a particular RP generates should never be one of
> them.
> 
> No network operators want to specify any 'local policy' on their RP
> instances to control under which conditions an RPKI object would be
> accepted.  Some network operators in this WG have voiced strong
> opinions about how such acceptance should be decided, but that's not
> because they want the ability to exert local policy there.  Such
> opinions are all toward the goal we share of all implementations
> reliably creating a correct/consistent VRP set.

you have been testing RP compliance to this for a good number of years,
and having quiet chats with RP implementors.  this has really helped and
is much appreciated.

randy