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

Speaking as regular ol’ member: On Dec 1, 2015, at 9:42 AM, Andrei Robachevsky wrote: > Tim Bruijnzeels wrote on 01/12/15 14:55: >>> >>> Tim, I am not sure I understand this. If the parent of the EE cert has a >>> shrunken set of resources, will it invalidate the

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

> 在 2015年12月2日，08:32，Sandra Murphy 写道： > > (We’ve overloaded “Valid” a couple of different ways valid certs, valid ROAs, > valid origins, valid Signature_Blocks, …) - it might be nice to readers and > users to come up with a different adjective here for the subset of the

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

Tim Bruijnzeels wrote on 26/11/15 13:29: > Please note that for ROAs there is a requirement that all ROA > prefixes are included on the EE certificate of the (ROA) signed > object CMS. This proposal does not change this. A ROA that has > prefixes that were removed for whatever reason higher in the

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

Tim Bruijnzeels wrote on 01/12/15 14:55: > Hi Andrei > >> On 01 Dec 2015, at 12:04, Andrei Robachevsky >> wrote: >> >> Tim Bruijnzeels wrote on 26/11/15 13:29: >>> Please note that for ROAs there is a requirement that all ROA >>> prefixes are included on the EE

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

Hi Andrei > On 01 Dec 2015, at 12:04, Andrei Robachevsky > wrote: > > Tim Bruijnzeels wrote on 26/11/15 13:29: >> Please note that for ROAs there is a requirement that all ROA >> prefixes are included on the EE certificate of the (ROA) signed >> object CMS. This

Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-04.txt

Unless the commentors speak up in the next 2-3 days I'll kick this forward to the IESG for publication... On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:01 PM, George, Wes wrote: > I believe that this draft is complete and ready to move forward. This > version addresses AD-review comments

Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-04.txt

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > Unless the commentors speak up in the next 2-3 days I'll kick this > forward to the IESG for publication... For those that like precise dates: dec 3 2015 2200 UTC (or there abouts) > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015