list
Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc draft-ietf-sidr-policy-qualifiers-00
Hi Geoff/Sandy,
Agree that we can void the mention on the current status of the known RP. As
the due-diligence was done, I am fine.
I think your proposed text from Geoff goes well with the intention of the
original text
From: Roque Gagliano (rogaglia) [rogag...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:18 AM
To: Geoff Huston; Murphy, Sandra
Cc: Andy Newton; sidr@ietf.org list
Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc draft-ietf-sidr-policy-qualifiers-00
Hi Geoff/Sandy,
Agree that we can void the mention on the current status
; sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc draft-ietf-sidr-policy-qualifiers-00
This sounds fine to me, though it is really an interoperability
considerations section thingy. The IETF does those now, right? :)
-andy
On 7/16/13 4:55 AM, Roque Gagliano (rogaglia) rogag...@cisco.com wrote
To: Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)
Cc: Murphy, Sandra; sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc draft-ietf-sidr-policy-qualifiers-00
This sounds fine to me, though it is really an interoperability
considerations section thingy. The IETF does those now, right? :)
-andy
On 7/16/13 4:55 AM, Roque
draft-ietf-sidr-policy-qualifiers-00
This sounds fine to me, though it is really an interoperability
considerations section thingy. The IETF does those now, right? :)
-andy
On 7/16/13 4:55 AM, Roque Gagliano (rogaglia) rogag...@cisco.com
wrote:
Thanks Andy.
Do you think we need to add
.
From: Andy Newton [a...@arin.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 9:49 AM
To: Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)
Cc: Murphy, Sandra; sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc draft-ietf-sidr-policy-qualifiers-00
This sounds fine to me, though it is really an interoperability
considerations section thingy
the acronym somewhere)
Not sure what as in IDR means.
From: Andy Newton [a...@arin.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 9:49 AM
To: Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)
Cc: Murphy, Sandra; sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] wglc draft-ietf-sidr-policy-qualifiers-00
Thanks Andy.
Do you think we need to add something in the security section about the
transition?
Something like:
A RP that performs a strick validation based on RFC6487 and fails to support
the updates described in this document, would incorrectly invalidate RPKI
signed objects that
Hi,
On Jul 15, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Tim Bruijnzeels t...@ripe.net wrote:
If the document is accepted I think more discussion is needed though on what
the RP can do with this information.
Sorry.. for snoozing.. it's not the adoption call of course, but last call.
My point stands though, I would
I support this draft being sent to WGLC. I have read the draft.
PKI imposes operational outcomes which relate to legalisms. conditions of
use, conditions of operation of service, dimensions which lie outside the
routing plane, and barely come into play for most of the time, but when you
*want to
10 matches
Mail list logo
