Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying >> i thought this was done > this one maybe done, but has not hit WGLC. we can do that here, or > there... I'm agnostic at this point. this is protocol, not ops randy ___ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Declan Ma wrote: > Chris, > > I would like to take this thread to request for comments on how to move on > SLURM. > > During the Seoul meeting, Tim suggested moving it to SIDROPS since SIDR is > being closed. > > Yet I had the impression that the AD

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

Chris, I would like to take this thread to request for comments on how to move on SLURM. During the Seoul meeting, Tim suggested moving it to SIDROPS since SIDR is being closed. Yet I had the impression that the AD hopes keeping the list/structure going until current work items are done.

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

>> draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops waiting to rev when iesg and whomever reviews are in. if someone wants an earlier push, shout. >> draft-ietf-sidr-lta-use-cases i thought this was post last call >> draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying i thought this was done randy

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

And again, restarting... post meeting and post travel refocusing :) On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Christopher Morrow < morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Restarting this thread, with some updates :) > > Preparing for Seoul in a few weeks time, with the intent that we do not > meet

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

Hi all, > On 26 Oct 2016, at 17:35, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > which leaves to be dealt with by Chicago 2 documents: > draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-tree-validation You may have just seen the -03 version posted. This version now includes a scope section to make it clear

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

> yes, the chairs posed the question: "Err, did we sink your battleship > with too many docks?" to alvaro, he's still using his snorkel to swim > out of the trench... he'll get there he says :) it would seem desirable to get them through the iesg before closing sidr and transitioning to sidrops.

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > > Currently we have the following in IESG/pub-request status (13 > documents): > > draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions > > draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration > > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs > > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops > >

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

> Currently we have the following in IESG/pub-request status (13 documents): > draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions > draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles >

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

Restarting this thread, with some updates :) Preparing for Seoul in a few weeks time, with the intent that we do not meet face-to-face in Chicago, have all current 'protocol' related docs to the IESG/done and meet instead in sidr-ops if there are agenda items at that time :) Currently we have

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

The nice thing about working in organizations that pride themselves on openness, is the archives. Some pointers I found. A long history. And this list is not necessarily complete. NRO letters: https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/icann_singletrustanchor.pdf

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

> going forward though, what's the path? "get rir and iana/icann to > agree that this is important, set a schedule for deployment, profit?" ^deploy, > ok, so we're back to: "I hear what you are saying, we (community) > really need

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

> ICANN, as the IANA Internet Numbering Functions Operator, did come > forward and we were informed there was no interest from the RIRs for > the IANA Internet Numbering Functions Operator to participate in > testing a single root RPKI service. this matches my memory. i am told the rirs even

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 1:47 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Chris, > > sure... I think sriram may cover this in his document about the decision > processes which lead to where we are today. > > I think, one way to look at the document and situation is this: > o community folks

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

Chris, sure... I think sriram may cover this in his document about the decision processes which lead to where we are today. I think, one way to look at the document and situation is this:   o community folks for each RIR asked for RPKI to be supported   o RIR folk put in some development

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

Chris, On September 7, 2016 at 4:42:21 AM, Christopher Morrow (morrowc.li...@gmail.com) wrote: I don't disagree that running a CA is 'simple'... I think though that if the RIRs are in a position where there won't be a single root above them 'for a while' (it's been ~10 yrs at this point) but

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Heasley wrote: > > > Am 08.09.2016 um 00:42 schrieb Randy Bush : > > >> Or maybe there's pushback that says: "Hey, I hear what you all in the > >> rir want, but it's not cool, please please let's dive back into the > >> politics

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

Am 08.09.2016 um 00:42 schrieb Randy Bush : >> Or maybe there's pushback that says: "Hey, I hear what you all in the >> rir want, but it's not cool, please please let's dive back into the >> politics stream and see how we get movement on what we all (probably?) >> want: a single

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

> Or maybe there's pushback that says: "Hey, I hear what you all in the > rir want, but it's not cool, please please let's dive back into the > politics stream and see how we get movement on what we all (probably?) > want: a single root for this system." the iab did that and got a written

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

net<mailto:andr...@ripe.net>> Date: Wednesday 7 September 2016 at 16:55 To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com<mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com>> Cc: "sidr@ietf.org<mailto:sidr@ietf.org>" <sidr@ietf.org<mailto:sidr@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [sidr]

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

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

> (note, I do not care for this message about politics) > > we're here because, I think, from the top down to the RIR there isn't a > hierarchy being created, right? the RIR folk are saying: "Ok, you all want > this thing, but upstairs hasn't created the root, so we're going to do the > best we

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

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 solution here, any technical discussion will loop back to politics as soon as one

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Rob Austein wrote: > I guess one question here is the purpose of publishing this document: > > a) If the purpose of asking the WG to publish is a hope that the WG >will agree that this is a good idea, then I'm with Randy and Steve >in the

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

I guess one question here is the purpose of publishing this document: a) If the purpose of asking the WG to publish is a hope that the WG will agree that this is a good idea, then I'm with Randy and Steve in the "hell no" camp. b) If the purpose is to document something that the RIRs have

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

Carlos, I guess what the RIRs are going to do is to create a CA hierarchy: RIR_CA_0/0_(probably a hidden HSM) ‹> RIR_CA_RIR_RESOURCES (online HSM) ‹> member_CA This means that not much changed from the current situation multiple self-signed certs, other than instead of getting the list of

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

At Sat, 3 Sep 2016 14:06:25 -0700, joel jaeggli wrote: > > [1 Re: Current document status && directionz ] > [1.1 ] > On 9/2/16 1:56 PM, Chris Morrow wrote: > > > > Howdy SIDR peeps, > > (+bonus ops ad) > > > > Following on the Berlin meeting we were trying to accomplish two

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

At Mon, 5 Sep 2016 19:54:53 -0300, "Carlos M. Martinez" wrote: > > Here is the pointer to the document: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rir-rpki-allres-ta-app-statement-01 > > Apologies for my earlier laziness. no worries, yes Sandy and I chatted about this...

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

Here is the pointer to the document: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rir-rpki-allres-ta-app-statement-01 Apologies for my earlier laziness. On 9/5/2016 3:32 PM, Carlos M. Martinez wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I know we already discussed this over private email, but perhaps you can > comment on the

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

Hi Chris, I know we already discussed this over private email, but perhaps you can comment on the list on the future of the requested WG adoption call for the ‘all resources’ applicability statement draft. thanks! -Carlos On 2 Sep 2016, at 17:56, Chris Morrow wrote: Howdy SIDR peeps,

Re: [sidr] Current document status && directionz

On 9/2/16 1:56 PM, Chris Morrow wrote: > > Howdy SIDR peeps, > (+bonus ops ad) > > Following on the Berlin meeting we were trying to accomplish two > things: > > 1) get all documents related to sidr protocols into wglc and then > publication > > 2) get all documents which are more

[sidr] Current document status && directionz

Howdy SIDR peeps, (+bonus ops ad) Following on the Berlin meeting we were trying to accomplish two things: 1) get all documents related to sidr protocols into wglc and then publication 2) get all documents which are more operationally focused moved along to an ops group (sidr-ops or