On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Carlos M. Martinez
wrote:
> hey!
>
> On 5/5/16 3:30 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > > I think it's an interesting topic to discuss, I'm a little worried
> > > that: "Because the third party said things are 'ok' I'll believe
> >
>> mostly because I don't see a clear method to ensure that 'third party' has:
>> 1) up-to-date information
> Same with RTR cache server.
i would not load routers from rpki caches i do not own and control
>> 2) my best interest at heart
> If you peer with a route server, you should
hey!
On 5/5/16 3:30 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > I think it's an interesting topic to discuss, I'm a little worried
> > that: "Because the third party said things are 'ok' I'll believe
> > things are ok!"
> >
> > mostly because I don't see a clear method to ensure that
Hi Chris,
I'm not sure if I get your point.
On Thu, 5 May 2016, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> I think it's an interesting topic to discuss, I'm a little worried
> that: "Because the third party said things are 'ok' I'll believe
> things are ok!"
>
> mostly because I don't see a clear method
(as a working group person)
I think it's an interesting topic to discuss, I'm a little worried that:
"Because the third party said things are 'ok' I'll believe things are ok!"
mostly because I don't see a clear method to ensure that 'third party' has:
1) up-to-date information
2) my best
Support adoption. Will participate in discussion. Important to getting
deployment (IMO).
Sue Hares
-Original Message-
From: sidr [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sandra Murphy
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:12 AM
To: sidr
Cc: Sandra Murphy
Subject: [sidr] working group