Re: [sidr] new agenda uploaded

I agree with Steve. “RPKI Validation Reconsidered” should not be carried on. And I believe that our WG should look at RPKI operation security from a wider perspective and pursue countermeasures according to a deliberate threat model as described in draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions. Di Ma

[sidr] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-05.txt

Hi Everyone, This is a revision to address the comments that arose on the IDR list as part of the SIDR WGLC for this document. I summarized those comments back at IETF-90, see https://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-sidr-5.pdf. The authors believe the document is ready to advance

[sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-13.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : BGPsec Algorithms, Key Formats, & Signature Formats Author : Sean Turner

Re: [sidr] [Idr] 1 WG call for Review draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-04 - RFC4271 changes

Hi Wes, I believe -05 should work for you -- we updated it to say 'don't leak across AS boundaries unless configured to do so'. Presumably in your case you would do that configuration. Thanks, --John > On Jun 14, 2014, at 12:25 AM, George, Wes wrote: > > > On

Re: [sidr] Validation reconsidered draft status

Here’s a file that shows the differences between the two procedures (I backed out the capitalization changes). text1 is in 6487 (left) and text2 is in validation-reconsidered (right). spt Title: Diff: text1.txt - text2.txt  text1.txt   text2.txt 

Re: [sidr] Validation reconsidered draft status

Folks, I think the authors have brought up some pertinent issues which have helped inspire other work which subsumes them. So I thank them but agree that it seems appropriate to drop this draft since those issues are now being covered in other documents and those documents have additional

Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-13.txt

This version addresses editorial tweaks I got from Steve. Most are concentrated in s2 where I tried to make it clearer that the algs to sign/verify cert requests and sign/verify BGPsec update messages are defined in the doc and the algs to make certs/CRLs are in 6485bis. And like the

[sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-05.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : BGP Prefix Origin Validation State Extended Community Authors : Pradosh Mohapatra

Re: [sidr] [Idr] 1 WG call for Review draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-04 - RFC4271 changes

Hi Robert, I didn't see any specific change requests in your followups to this thread and indeed the changes in -05 are (I believe) consistent with the positions you took, but in any case you might like to take a look at the update. Thanks, --John > On Jun 12, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Robert Raszuk

[sidr] jabber scribe and minutes taker volunteers needed

We meet in a few hours but we don’t yet have jabber scribe and minutes taker volunteers. Please do consider volunteering. For minutes taker, use of the etherpad means others can help out. Jabber scribing is very helpful for the remote participants. The meeting will be unable to progress

Re: [sidr] Validation Reconsidered (again/again) question

> On 6 Nov 2015, at 12:52 PM, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > Please take 2 weeks time to consider: > > "This document was adopted as a WG work item, should we accept this > change and complete the work or not?” > I say “Yes," for some value of somebody/some

Re: [sidr] Validation reconsidered draft status

I disagree with the assertions Karen > On 6 Nov 2015, at 7:53 AM, Karen Seo wrote: > > Folks, > > I think the authors have brought up some pertinent issues which have helped > inspire other work which subsumes them. So I thank them but agree that it > seems appropriate to

[sidr] Validation Reconsidered (again/again) question

Please take 2 weeks time to consider: "This document was adopted as a WG work item, should we accept this change and complete the work or not?" where: 'this document' is: I'll close the mic line on: 11/20/2015

Re: [sidr] Validation reconsidered draft status

Karen, I disagree with your position. Our draft does not explore adverse actions nor discuses transfers. It is not the same topic. -Carlos On 11/6/15 5:53 AM, Karen Seo wrote: > Folks, > > I think the authors have brought up some pertinent issues which have > helped inspire other work which

Re: [sidr] Validation Reconsidered (again/again) question

Aside from process questions (whether should the draft update a standard or nor), I definitely believe the WG should continue working on this. -Carlos On 11/6/15 10:52 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > Please take 2 weeks time to consider: > > "This document was adopted as a WG work item, should

Re: [sidr] Validation Reconsidered (again/again) question

> On 06 Nov 2015, at 10:56, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: > > Aside from process questions (whether should the draft update a standard > or nor), I definitely believe the WG should continue working on this. +1 Tim > > -Carlos > > On 11/6/15 10:52 AM, Christopher Morrow

Re: [sidr] Validation reconsidered draft status

Geoff, So, if the adverse actions draft is adopted by the WG, we (the WG) could use the requirements stemming from these two IDs as the basis for a solution(s) document. And that in a nutshell is exactly why I oppose the adoption of this document. It appears to me that this step assumes

Re: [sidr] Validation reconsidered draft status

> 在 2015年11月6日，13:16，Geoff Huston 写道： > > I disagree with the assertions Karen > > >> On 6 Nov 2015, at 7:53 AM, Karen Seo wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> I think the authors have brought up some pertinent issues which have helped >> inspire other work which

Re: [sidr] new agenda uploaded

Sandy, I think "draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered served a valuable purpose, highlighting valid concerns about potential fragility in the RPKI, in the face of errors by CAs and in the context of INR transfers. However, I feel that this I-D should not progress. The topic of INR