Subject: [Sidr] ROA Validation, Repository Structure, and Bogon drafts

From: [email-masked] (Sandy Murphy)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:05:16 -0400 (EDT)

I am disappointed at the lack of response to the question of acceptance
of three drafts (ROA validation, repository structure, and bogons) from
the Philly meeting as wg items.  The questions went out to the list
in April.  Each draft got exactly one response.

In each case, the response was positive.  But that's hardly enough to be
judged "consensus".

It might be judged "apathy", though.

Please, people.  Respond.  Positively or negatively, we need to decide
whether the working group should adopt each topic as part of our work.

The messages you should respond to are:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg00401.html
(for draft-huston-sidr-bogons-01.txt - a new version has been
announced since, so the correct link is
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huston-sidr-bogons-01.txt)

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg00402.html
for draft-huston-sidr-repos-struct-01.txt 

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg00403.html
for draft-huston-sidr-roa-validation-00.txt 

--Sandy
_______________________________________________
Sidr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:11:53 -0400

Sandy,

I reiterate my support for pursing the ROA validation I-D. We need 
the level of detail that Geoff has provided in this document, that 
goes beyond what is currently in the ROA I-D.  They probably could be 
combined into one document, if the WG wants, but the info is 
essential.

I also want to express my support for the Repository Structure I-D. 
The info contained in this document is critical to completing the 
architecture description. The architecture references this doc.

As for BOAs, I do like the notion. Some concern have been expressed 
that the construct may be too powerful. I think the WG should 
continue to discuss the topic and decide whether the notion can be 
made "safe" enough to satisfy the concerns that have been raised, or 
if we have to drop it.  We can agree to adopt a document now, but 
that does not mean that we will eventually approve it, right?

Steve