Subject: [Sidrops] request for call for Working Group adoption draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:22:54 +0100

Dear chairs,

I'd like to request the chairs to consider initiating a call for working
group adoption of draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update

Kind regards,

Job

----- Forwarded message from [email-masked] -----

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 07:54:53 -0800
From: [email-masked]
To: Ben Maddison <[email-masked]>, Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Subject: New Version Notification for
	draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update-00.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Job Snijders and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update
Revision:	00
Title:		RPKI Validation Re-reconsidered
Document date:	2021-02-22
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		9
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update/
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update-00

Abstract:
   This document describes an improved validation procedure for Resource
   Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) signed objects.  This document
   updates RFC 6482.  This document updates RFC 6487.  This document
   obsoletes RFC 8360.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

----- End forwarded message -----

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 06:03:51 -0800

> group adoption of draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update

this is a protocol change and a serious one, and hence does not belong
in an ops group

randy

---

From: Tim Bruijnzeels <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 15:28:35 +0100

Hi,

> On 10 Mar 2021, at 15:03, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Perhaps, but the same can be said about a number of adopted documents.

There is a need to do work, and no clear indication as to where else. So, perhaps a re-charter/move should be considered. In the meantime this was not an objection to taking on other work (aspa, RTA, RSC, prefer-rrdp), so why should it be now?

Tim

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

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 16:54:23 +0100

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 06:03:51AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I'd like to request the chairs to consider initiating a call for
> > working group adoption of draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update
> 

There is ongoing operational problem: the original validation algorithm
is lacking. A fix is feasible, and even better: the fix is incrementally
deployable. 

Not adopting this draft might be perceived as an attempt to stiffle
discussion, but would not prevent RP developers from incorporating
improvements which benefit themselves and the users. The IETF's power is
somewhat limited in that regard.

Of course it is fair game to try a tactic like "this is out of scope",
however such sentences do not change the operational reality of the
situation that there is a fundamental problem in the current validation
algorithm ...  for which 'ops' people see a viable path forward. 

Kind regards,

Job

ps. Does anyone on the sidrops@ list have commit access to the OpenSSL
code repository?

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 10:12:01 -0800

> There is ongoing operational problem

most protocol problems cause operational problems.  it is a measure of
their severity.

randy

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 18:45:32 -0400

it seems to me this could be framed as:
  "Hey, this problem with the protocol is a problem, it's raising problems
for operations
    of the systems involved. Let's get the size/shape of the problem
figured out and get
    some requirements for a change together to have the SIDR WG fix this
protocol problem"

that might be hard with SIDR gone, but there are a bunch of ex-SIDR now
SIDROPS folks in
SIDROPS who can say:
  "ok, this seems insane, run fast in the opposite direction!!"
or:
  "Err, this isn't horrible, maybe this is easy to just fix in a proposal
here?"

-chris

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 1:12 PM Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >>> working group adoption of
> draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-validation-update
> >>