Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

Hi Randy, I did. Thank you very much. Do you think that a notice to law enforcement about how this action would be ineffective and counter-productive has a place in your analysis? Something along the lines of what I suggested earlier: Law enforcement would be ill-advised to take this

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

you may, or may not, notice that the current i-d does not mention ripe/ncc randy ___ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

Tim, I agree that the preferred approach is to persuade law enforcement folks to not view the RPKI as a new tool for taking down sites. However, I have already encountered folks in the law enforcement community who viewed it as such. I have argued that this wold be bad, but ... Given the

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

> 在 2016年7月28日，22:32，Tim Bruijnzeels 写道： > > Hi, > >> On 22 Jul 2016, at 17:48, Stephen Kent wrote: >> >> It seems preferable to describe the first motivating case without reference >> to a specific RIR. > > Although I appreciate that Randy is trying to

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

Hi, > On 22 Jul 2016, at 17:48, Stephen Kent wrote: > > It seems preferable to describe the first motivating case without reference > to a specific RIR. Although I appreciate that Randy is trying to explain the case in terms anyone can understand, it would be preferable to keep

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

At Fri, 22 Jul 2016 11:48:30 -0400, Stephen Kent wrote: > > [1 ] > Chris, > > Here is my message to the SIDR list from 6/16: > great, thanks! > >I read the latest version of this document and have a few comments, >some of which I have made before, to no avail ;-). >

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

Di, enjoy. You have my permission to take over SLURM. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. On 07/22/2016 05:48 AM, Declan Ma wrote: > Sandy & Chris, > > Thank Steve for recommending me to take over SLURM. > > With David’s permission, I would be happy to assume responsibility for

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

Chris, Here is my message to the SIDR list from 6/16: I read the latest version of this document and have a few comments, some of which I have made before, to no avail ;-). I still find the wording of the three examples in Section 4 to be unnecessarily informal. I’ve provided

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

Sandy & Chris, Thank Steve for recommending me to take over SLURM. With David’s permission, I would be happy to assume responsibility for SLURM. I think SLURM is quite important to RPKI operation in term of local network. SLURM provides a simple way to enable INR holders to establish a

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > 1) use-cases - decide on tweaks & rev-document: Aug 1 > > review and WGLC Aug 14 > > send to IESG Sept 1 > > do we have a concise issue list (other than steve not liking the style > used)?

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

> 1) use-cases - decide on tweaks & rev-document: Aug 1 > review and WGLC Aug 14 > send to IESG Sept 1 do we have a concise issue list (other than steve not liking the style used)? not sure i will make the 1 aug dreadline if i have to sift through the mailing

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

At Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:42:07 -0400, Stephen Kent wrote: > > Sandy & Chris, > > I believe Chris' declaration is premature. > > I anticipate that Dr. Ma may want to take over slurm, with David's > permission. > > With a few minor tweaks the use cases doc can be done. ok, let's

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

Sandy & Chris, I believe Chris' declaration is premature. I anticipate that Dr. Ma may want to take over slurm, with David's permission. With a few minor tweaks the use cases doc can be done. Steve ___ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 11:59 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: > > >> On Jul 21, 2016, at 6:36 AM, Chris Morrow wrote: >> >> >> We are going to officially stake: >> 1) draft-ietf-sidr-slurm > > Hasn’t had energy in a while, but not so long that I can

Re: [sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 6:36 AM, Chris Morrow wrote: > > > We are going to officially stake: > 1) draft-ietf-sidr-slurm Hasn’t had energy in a while, but not so long that I can say there’s no possibility of resurrection. (e.g., keyroll had a two year gap in there.

[sidr] two stranded docuemnts - stake time

We are going to officially stake: 1) draft-ietf-sidr-slurm 2) draft-ietf-sidr-lta-use-cases These are not being progressed currently, and won't be in the future it seems. We'll do the process bits next week to remove them from SIDR's work queue. -chris