Subject: [sidr] WG adoption of draft-achi-rpki-signed-object-00.txt

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:47:42 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

The working group chairs have received a request from the authors of 
draft-achi-rpki-signed-object-00.txt that the working group adopt this 
internet draft as a work item.

This is the draft to which Matt Lepinski alluded in his message of 20 Aug 
2010.  As he notes, this draft is an extract of the common language from 
the ROA format and manifest documents that has to do with the CMS 
encapsulation for signed objects.

Note that the draft from which the language was extracted are already 
working group work items.  The work item represented by this new draft is 
the creation of an extract and a generic description.

The draft is available at 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-achi-rpki-signed-object-00

As always in a call for adoption:

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.

Because of the special circumstances of this draft, the call for adoption 
will be shorter than usual - 10 days, ending 1 Sept 2010.

--Sandy, speaking as wg chair

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 06:30:42 +1000

The Working Group chairs have also received a request from the authors of draft-huston-sidr-keyroll-00.txt on the 26th July that the working group adopt this internet draft as a work item, and a followup in support of this request from a working group member on the 4th August.

Would the WG chairs please act on this earlier request, or kindly indicate the exact nature of procedural errors in the earlier request so that the authors may redress them to the extent possible?

On 24/08/2010, at 12:47 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:

> The working group chairs have received a request from the authors of draft-achi-rpki-signed-object-00.txt that the working group adopt this internet draft as a work item.
> 
> This is the draft to which Matt Lepinski alluded in his message of 20 Aug 2010.  As he notes, this draft is an extract of the common language from the ROA format and manifest documents that has to do with the CMS encapsulation for signed objects.
> 
> Note that the draft from which the language was extracted are already working group work items.  The work item represented by this new draft is the creation of an extract and a generic description.
> 
> The draft is available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-achi-rpki-signed-object-00
> 
> Because of the special circumstances of this draft, the call for adoption will be shorter than usual - 10 days, ending 1 Sept 2010.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:14:10 +0900

> internet draft as a work item.

support

randy

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:57:02 -0400

+1

This document seems like a good approach to maintaining some sort of  
long-term architectural sanity in the RPKI, maybe even something that  
could simplify tool-building.

--Richard

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:21:18 -0700

Support, and willing to review.

Cheers
Terry

---

From: Karen Seo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:20:16 -0400

I support this.

>draft-achi-rpki-signed-object-00.txt that the working group adopt 
>this internet draft as a work item.
>
>This is the draft to which Matt Lepinski alluded in his message of 
>20 Aug 2010.  As he notes, this draft is an extract of the common 
>language from the ROA format and manifest documents that has to do 
>with the CMS encapsulation for signed objects.
>
>Note that the draft from which the language was extracted are 
>already working group work items.  The work item represented by this 
>new draft is the creation of an extract and a generic description.
>
>Because of the special circumstances of this draft, the call for 
>adoption will be shorter than usual - 10 days, ending 1 Sept 2010.
>

---

From: Robert Kisteleki <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:02:19 +0200

Generally I support this too, but have a specific question: what's the 
intended future relation between this would-be-draft and the existing ROA 
draft? I mean, once we have a template, we should use that, even for the 
ROAs, right?

Robert

On 2010.08.23. 16:47, Sandra Murphy wrote:
> 2010. As he notes, this draft is an extract of the common language from the
> ROA format and manifest documents that has to do with the CMS encapsulation
> for signed objects.
>
> working group work items. The work item represented by this new draft is the
> creation of an extract and a generic description.
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:44:47 +0900

> draft? I mean, once we have a template, we should use that, even for the 

i have been told that is the plan.  i certainly hope so.

randy

---

From: Roque Gagliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:54:58 +0200

I support the adoption of the document and Robert's comment. I can see the inclusion of the generic document in references section of the new ROA draft but would also to see it in the main text.

Roque.

> Generally I support this too, but have a specific question: what's the intended future relation between this would-be-draft and the existing ROA draft? I mean, once we have a template, we should use that, even for the ROAs, right?
> 
> Robert
> 
>

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 04:03:17 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I think Matt's message to the list of 20 Aug 2010 included a revised 
version of the roa format that would make use of the generic signed object 
draft.

If the generic signed object draft is adopted by the wg, then the roa 
format draft authors will have the opportunity to change the roa format 
draft in accordance with wg consensus.

--Sandy

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Robert Kisteleki wrote:

>> the

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 04:22:42 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Geoff is correct, I did miss making the requested wg call for adoption.

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 04:24:50 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Forgot to add the obligatory coda...

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, Sandra Murphy wrote:

> I think Matt's message to the list of 20 Aug 2010 included a revised version 
> of the roa format that would make use of the generic signed object draft.
>
> If the generic signed object draft is adopted by the wg, then the roa format 
> draft authors will have the opportunity to change the roa format draft in 
> accordance with wg consensus.
>
> --Sandy

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:25:48 -0400

> encapsulation for signed objects.

Support.

As an implementor I really want to use a common code path to validate
the common portions of all objects of this general form, and would
really prefer a single specification of what that code should do. :)

---

From: Tim Bruijnzeels <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:26:41 +1000

> adoption of the draft as a wg work item.

Support and agree with Rob Austein's comment. In our implementation we
are already using a generic CMS object for ROAs and Manifests, having a
dedicated draft helps making this stuff better testable in isolation.

Cheers
Tim