Subject: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-02

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:55:45 -0500 (EST)

Randy Bush has requested a WG LC for draft "The RPKI/Router Protocol".

The document and the draft version history are available at
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sidr/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr.

The Last Call will end Wed, 1 Dec 2010 (AOE).

As usual, please address all comments to the WG mailing list, and
please be clear in your comments to this last call if you are
supporting the document's submission to the IESG or if you are
opposed. If you are opposed, please indicate why.

--Sandy, speaking with wg chair cloche on

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:46:10 +0100

> opposed. If you are opposed, please indicate why.

As far as I can see, this document is not referred to in the
architecture document, making it quite hard to understand where
it fits in the grand scheme of things.   Can this be fixed?

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.            Anonymous Politician.

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:46:49 +0100

> The Last Call will end Wed, 1 Dec 2010 (AOE).

Other than the 2 comments I just posted, I think these documents should
go forward.

Henk

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:15:19 +1100

> opposed. If you are opposed, please indicate why.

I support this document advancing

  Geoff

---

From: Tim Bruijnzeels <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:32:52 +0100

> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sidr/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr.

support

I have not worked with this as an implementer myself but considering
that Randy and others have this working in test I believe this can go
forward.

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

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:48:48 -0200

Support.

.as

---

From: Byron Ellacott <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:57:16 +1000

I support this draft advancing.

--
Byron Ellacott                         email:           [email-masked]
Technical Director, APNIC              sip:        [email-masked]
http://www.apnic.net                   phone:         +61 7 3858 3100
________________________________________________________________________
 * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.

---

From: "Mark Reynolds" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:24:23 -0500

The text refers to "rcynic" in two places. However, rcynic is not the only
relying party software that supports the RTR protocol. Wouldn't it
improve the generality of the text to say "relying party software that
supports this protocol (such as rcynic)" instead of just "rcynic".

---

From: Karen Seo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:01:42 -0500

In implementing this protocol, we had to add a third error code to 
the implementation: Invalid Request.  The server needs to be able to 
say something back when the client sends it a badly formed request. 
We realize that the spec does say that the authors expect the 
addition of new error codes later, but we may as well add this code 
now rather than later.

Thank you,
Karen