Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

Hi Chris, With regards to "draft-rir-rpki-allres-ta-app-statement², the question for the WG acceptance should go back to the authors on their willingness to take WG feedback. If the aim is to work with the WG, I think the document describes a current problem with inter-RIR address transfers and

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

Hi Andrew, Taking into consideration your call for transparency, do you think the RIRs could add a section on the document where it is clearly stated what are the roadblocks to have a single root? I believe the document describes the problem and one technical feasible solution but not the full

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

At Wed, 7 Sep 2016 10:42:10 -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: ... > I think it means that since there is no single root coming 'soon', Because they have chosen to neither create one nor work out their issues with the obvious external candidate. Politics. > the RIR's are taking a step to move

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Andrew de la Haye wrote: > > On 07 Sep 2016, at 16:42, Christopher Morrow > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Rob Austein wrote: > >> At Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:48:07 -0400, Christopher Morrow

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

> On 07 Sep 2016, at 16:42, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Rob Austein > wrote: > At Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:48:07 -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > > (note, I do not care for this message

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Rob Austein wrote: > At Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:48:07 -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > > (note, I do not care for this message about politics) > > Understood, with the caveat that since it's the politics which are > pushing the wrong technical