Subject: [sidr] WG adoption on draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-05.txt

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 17:23:55 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Randy Bush has requested that the working group adopt the draft 
draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-05.txt as a work item.

It is available at 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-05

Recall that active support for adoption is necessary for the wg chairs to
judge acceptance as a working group work item, so silence works against
adoption.  The wg chairs also want to know who would be willing to work on
the draft.

Please respond to the list, giving your recommendation for or against
adoption of the draft as a wg work item as well as your intention to work
on the draft if adopted.  The call for adoption will end in two weeks on 
May 26.

--Sandy, speaking as wg chair

---

From: "George, Wes E IV [NTK]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 07:25:14 -0500

Support adoption of both this and draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-07

Thanks,
Wes George
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sandra Murphy
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [sidr] WG adoption on draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-05.txt

It is available at

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

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 13:29:56 -0400

I am in favor of adopting this document, with one (hopefully minor) exception.

I'm concerned that this document cites "rcynic" vs. "rsync" as the 
protocol to employ for access to the RPKI repository.  There has been 
a moderate amount of effort to make the IESG comfortable with citing 
rsync in an RFC.  I see no need to adopt a variant of this base 
protocol as a standard for RPKI access.  I also note that BBN's 
relying party code uses rsync, not rcynic, for such access.

Steve

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 22:53:55 -0700

Support adoption and willing to review.

No substantive concerns just yet..

Cheers
Terry

---

From: Roque Gagliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 11:00:35 +0200

Hi,

I also support this document, it is an important part of the puzzle
and concur with Steve comment about rcyninc references.

More reviews later on.

Roque

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Stephen Kent <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I'm concerned that this document cites "rcynic" vs. "rsync" as the protocol
> to employ for access to the RPKI repository.  There has been a moderate
> amount of effort to make the IESG comfortable with citing rsync in an RFC.
>  I see no need to adopt a variant of this base protocol as a standard for
> RPKI access.  I also note that BBN's relying party code uses rsync, not
> rcynic, for such access.
>
> Steve