Really, does anyone here think that it is good form to send email with font size *SMALL*? If your MUA does this by default complain to the developers. The default should be “medium”. If the font is too big on your screen change the magnification *you* choose to display to *yourself*, don’t change the font size you send to everyone else.
Mark <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:courier = new,monospace;font-size:small">Well... I must confess that I had some diffi= culty=C2=A0on the first understanding=C2=A0of what is proposed.<br><br>But = > On 23 Feb 2021, at 04:03, Douglas Fischer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well... I must confess that I had some difficulty on the first understanding > of what is proposed. > > But after the 4 reads, I saw that this "spaghetti" thing is more powerful > than I could imagine! > > > Please correct me if I'm no right: > But it looks like a "crypto sign and publishes" anything related to an > organization. > > Yes, I think that with some effort CrossConnect LOAs can be fitted inside of > it... > I'm not sure if it is the better solution for the scope of LOAs, but > certainly is a valid discussion. > > > What is bubbling in my mind is the standard data model for each type of > different attribute that can exist... > Who will define that? > > > > Em seg., 22 de fev. de 2021 às 12:26, Christopher Morrow > <[email protected]> escreveu: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 9:19 AM Douglas Fischer > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I believe that almost everyone in here knows that LOAs for Cross Connects > > in Datacenters and Telecom Rooms can be a pain... > > > > I don't know if I'm suggesting something that already exists. > > Or even if I'm suggesting something that could be unpopular for some reason. > > > > But every time I need to deal with some Cross-Connect LOA, and mostly when > > we face some rework on data mistakes, I dream with a "PeeringDB for Cross > > Connects". > > > > are you asking about something like this: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-rsc/ > > Which COULD be used to, as an AS holder: > "sign something to be sent between you and the colo and your intended peer" > > that you could sign (with your rpki stuffs) and your peer could also > sign with their 'rpki stuffs', and which the colo provider could > automatically validate and action upon final signature(s) received. > > > So, this mail is a question and also a suggestion. > > > > > > There is something like an "online notary's office" exclusive for > > Cross-Connect LOAs? > > - Somewhere Organizations can register information authorizing connections > > of Port on their Places (Cages, Racks, etc)... > > > > The RPKI data today doesn't contain information about > cages/ports/patch-panels, so possibly the spaghetti draft isn't a > terrific fit? > > > If it doesn't exist. What would be necessary for that? > > Mostly considering the PeeringDB work model. > > - OpenSource. > > - Free access to the tool, and sponsors to keep the project alive. > > - API driven, with some Web-gui. > > And considering some data-modeling. > > - Most of the data being Open/Public (Organizations, > > Facilities(Datacenters and/or Telecom-Rooms), Presence on Facilities, etc). > > - Access control to Information that can not be public (A-side > > organization, Z-Side Organization, PathPanel/Port). > > And some workflow > > - Cross Connect Requiremento/Authorization from A-Side > > - Acceptance/Authorization from Z-side. > > - Acceptance/Authorization from Facilities involved (could be more than > > one) > > - Execution/Activation notice from Facilities. > > > > > > -- > > Douglas Fernando Fischer > > Engº de Controle e Automação > > > -- > Douglas Fernando Fischer > Engº de Controle e Automação -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
