Re: [sidr] draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-05.txt

While going through back mail I noticed this and that there seems to be no followups. I support this as a WG doc. W On Mar 27, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote: we would like to sumbit draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-05.txt as a sidr wg draft on standards track. it needs to be standards

Re: [sidr] SIDR Charter Question

On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote: On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Geoff Huston wrote: Thank you for this response. As I had noted earlier, if you had made it clearer in which role you were posting in these discussions it would be easier for others, or at least myself, to understand

Re: [sidr] SIDR Charter Question

On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi wrote: May be we could include a BCP statement or warning within the algorithm document for the (very few) users of AS sets. If they use, for example, [AS42] or [AS42, AS42] type of AS set for whatever reason (i.e., with singleton AS in the AS

[sidr] A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure - WG

Hi there all, I am asking that A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) draft-weiler-sidr-publication-00.txt ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-weiler-sidr-publication-00 ) become a working group item. W ___ sidr

Re: [sidr] removing TLS from the provisioning protocol

On Aug 25, 2010, at 4:18 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: We had a discussion in April on the list regarding removing TLS from the provisioning protocol. Rob Austein presented his views on the issue at the sidr meeting at the IETF78 in Maastricht. I am calling for wg consensus on the question.

Re: [sidr] adopting alternate trust format in draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04

On Aug 25, 2010, at 4:18 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: Draft draft-weiler-sidr-trust-anchor-format-00.txt suggests an alternate trust anchor representation format from that proposed in draft-ietf-sidr-ta-04. This alternate format was discussed in the sidr meeting in IETF78 in Maastricht. I

Re: [sidr] A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure - WG

on) On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote: Hi there all, I am asking that A Publication Protocol for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) draft-weiler-sidr-publication-00.txt ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-weiler-sidr-publication-00

Re: [sidr] WG Adoption for draft-ymbk-rpki-origin-ops-00

Support. W On Nov 18, 2010, at 12:01 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: Randy Bush has requested that the working group adopt the draft draft-ymbk-rpki-origin-ops-00, RPKI-Based Origin Validation Operations, as a work item. It is available at

Re: [sidr] WG LC for draft-ietf-sidr-arch-11

Support. W On Nov 5, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote: The authors of draft-ietf-sidr-arch (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-arch-11) have requested a working group last call. The chairs ask the working group to consider this draft and decide whether it is worthy of

Re: [sidr] call for adoption of draft-kent-bgpsec-threats-01

I support WG adoption of this draft (and have even read it :-P) and am willing to review, participate in discussions, etc... W On Apr 19, 2011, at 7:26 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: The working group has been requested to adopt draft-kent-bgpsec-threats-01 as a working group draft, to satisfy

Re: [sidr] call for adoption of draft-ymbk-bgpsec-reqs-02

I support WG adoption of this draft (and have even read it :-P) and am willing to review, participate in discussions, etc... W On Apr 19, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: The working group has been requested to adopt draft-ymbk-bgpsec-reqs-02 as a working group draft, to satisfy the

Re: [sidr] call for adoption of draft-lepinski-bgpsec-protocol-00

As a contributor I (obviously) support adoption (and, in case y'all couldn't tell, am getting bored of typing I support...) On Apr 19, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: The working group has been requested to adopt draft-lepinski-bgpsec-protocol-00 as a working group draft, to

Re: [sidr] adopt a mib

On Aug 4, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Randy Bush wrote: i would request the wg adopt draft-ymbk-bgp-origin-validation-mib Support adoption. draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib Support adoption. yes, they are works in progress. but that's what a wg is for. Yes they are, and, yes it is

Re: [sidr] WG LC for draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-06.txt

Support. On Jul 13, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote: The chairs have received a request from the authors for a WG Last Call for The RPKI Ghostbusters Record, draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-06. The document and the draft version history are available at:

Re: [sidr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-03.txt

On Aug 5, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Yes I would like the wg to consider adoption of: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-algs/ they seem well within the scope of the wg's work. i

Re: [sidr] wg adoption for draft-ymbk-bgp-origin-validation-mib and draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib

On Aug 5, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: The working group has been requested to adopt draft-ymbk-bgp-origin-validation-mib Support. draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-protocol-mib Support. I am willing to review and provide input, but am by no means a MIB monkey, and so my review will

Re: [sidr] call for wg adoption of draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles

On Aug 9, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote: The working group has been requested to adopt draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles as a working group draft. The draft is available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles Please respond to the list to say

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-02.txt

On Sep 8, 2011, at 5:59 AM, Randy Bush wrote: hi terry, It strikes me that this is the first time you have read this draft despite the several calls to the WG to do so. this version, yes. read a year or so ago, and it was structurally so off my map that i did not do more than scan.

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-usecases-02.txt

On Sep 8, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: On Sep 8, 2011, at 5:59 AM, Randy Bush wrote: hi terry, It strikes me that this is the first time you have read this draft despite the several calls to the WG to do so. this version, yes. read a year or so ago

Re: [sidr] about a router AS-related certificate

On Oct 17, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Stephen Kent wrote: At 10:50 AM -0400 10/14/11, Sandra Murphy wrote: The wg has just demonstrated a lack of support for adoption of a suggested cert profile for routers in draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles. Unfortunately, a router certificate is already

Re: [sidr] call for wg adoption of draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-algs

Retro-support as well… W P.S: Is there a way to retro-trade as well? how about retro-betting? On Oct 14, 2011, at 1:58 PM, John G. Scudder wrote: Retro-support. --John On Oct 14, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: This call for adoption did not get sufficient support to judge

Re: [sidr] call for wg adoption of draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles

On Oct 14, 2011, at 10:46 AM, John Scudder wrote: Oops. Belated support. Me too…. [ I'm reading mail (from a hotel with no in room Internet :-() all out of order, so… ] W --John On Oct 14, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: The chairs did not see sufficient response to

[sidr] Please take a look at proposed IDR doc, draft-wkumari-idr-as0-01

Hi all, Over in IDR there is currently a call for adoption of draft-wkumari-idr-as0-01 -- this draft belongs in IDR (it clarifies a minor point in BGP docs), but one of hte main reasons for the drafts existence is to support SIDR features. So far there not been much discussion on the call for

Re: [sidr] Last Call: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-19.txt (The RPKI/Router Protocol) to Proposed Standard

On Nov 29, 2011, at 5:51 PM, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG (sidr) to consider the following document: - 'The RPKI/Router Protocol' draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-19.txt as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the

Re: [sidr] WG adoption call for draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-impl-01.txt

On Jan 20, 2012, at 7:19 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote: The working group has been requested to adopt draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-impl-01.txt as a working group draft. The draft is available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-rpki-rtr-impl. Please respond to the list to say whether you accept

Re: [sidr] wg adoption call for draft-ymbk-bgpsec-rtr-rekeying-00.txt

Read and support… Sorry, there are so many drafts, I can never keep clear which ones I have already supported… W On Mar 24, 2012, at 11:18 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: crickets Hey folk, Is this draft stating something obvious and doesn't need to be documented? or are we in need of this

Re: [sidr] No BGPSEC intradomain ?

On Apr 9, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: Hi, And intradomain BGP speakers do not use bgpsec (ebgp sessions only). I do not understand. How a BGP Update will transit via an AS where each router is a real BGP speaker and where as some proposed BGP mandatory AS_PATH attribute is

Re: [sidr] [Idr] No BGPSEC intradomain ?

On Apr 10, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Robert Raszuk rob...@raszuk.net wrote: Anyhow my doubt has been answered and I stay by my opinion that not sending AS_PATH and AS4_PATH is a terrible idea. So... we can send the data along, but in the

Re: [sidr] RPKI and private keys (was RE: Interim Meeting Draft Agenda: 04-30-2012 (April 30, 2012)))

On May 11, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: though I contend you have time between 'card fail' and 'router back to normal' to ship a key in the ether/ssh to the device too. by the time the replacement re is

Re: [sidr] RPKI and private keys (was RE: Interim Meeting Draft Agenda: 04-30-2012 (April 30, 2012)))

On May 14, 2012, at 4:07 PM, Randy Bush wrote: The number of times the backplane fails pales in comparison to the number of RE / line-card failures, and many (most?) architectures already have an I2C EEPROM on the [back|mid]plane. A 1Mb I2C EEPROM costs around ~$1.35 (or ~$0.60 more than a

Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun

On May 22, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: Hi WG, On 22 May 2012, at 07:08, Murphy, Sandra sandra.mur...@sparta.com wrote: An eagle eye reader points out that the agenda deadline before the June meeting is in May, not June, and the day after tomorrow is still May, not June.

Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun

On May 22, 2012, at 11:38 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: Hi, On 22 May 2012, at 08:21, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote: On May 22, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: Hi WG, On 22 May 2012, at 07:08, Murphy, Sandra sandra.mur...@sparta.com wrote: An eagle eye reader

Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-06

On Jun 1, 2012, at 7:00 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote: The authors have stated that they believe that draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-06 BGP Prefix Origin Validation is ready for a working group last call. The draft can be accessed at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-06

Re: [sidr] WG Adoption call for draft-rogaglia-sidr-bgpsec-rollover-01.txt

On Jun 28, 2012, at 4:45 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote: There were only two responses to this call for adoption. Both were positive (and one was followed by extensive comments), but that's a pretty low indication of wg interest. On the chance that people might be on holiday, we will give the

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles

On Jun 28, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote: This last call has ended. There were only three comments during the wglc. Two noted that the document was solid, but that it was premature to advance the draft when the protocols spec was still undergoing changes and might produce new

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles

On Jul 10, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Sean Turner wrote: On 7/3/12 4:50 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: On Jun 28, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote: This last call has ended. There were only three comments during the wglc. Two noted that the document was solid, but that it was premature

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-origin-ops-

On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: Hello WG folk, This draft has undergone 9 revisions since the last WGLC, which seemed to end with requests for changes by the authors. Can we now have a final-final-please-let's-progress WGLC for this draft now? Let's end the call:

Re: [sidr] WGLC on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-impl-01

On Aug 17, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote: The authors believe that the draft is ready for publication. This announces a two week last call. The WGLC will end 31 Aug 2012. Please report to the list whether you support publication of this draft or not. The draft is available

Re: [sidr] origin attribute

On Oct 23, 2012, at 11:14 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: sandy asked so i investigated. bgp has an origin atttribute. it looks as if we need to protect it. the origin attribute may have three values, unspecified igp egp supposedly denoting from where the route was injected

Re: [sidr] Poll: WG acceptance of draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting-02

On Dec 12, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Alexey Melnikov alexey.melni...@isode.com wrote: Dear WG participants, I would like to initiate 2+ weeks poll (ending on December 31st 2012) regarding acceptance of draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting-02.txt. Please reply to questions listed below. Send your

Re: [sidr] GB records

On Jan 9, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: Has anyone done any work deploying ghostbusters records yet? yes If there are any opportune examples altCA.png giggle_ Cute. W __ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org

Re: [sidr] slight whoops ...

On Mar 7, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Eric Osterweil eosterw...@verisign.com wrote: On Mar 7, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:54 PM, da...@tcb.net wrote: I'm not sure I

Re: [sidr] review/adoption of draft-george-sidr-as-migration

On May 29, 2013, at 9:59 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote: All – I have not received any feedback regarding this draft since I posted the revision incorporating the solution into it in February. Sorry. I promised another review, and then got sidetracked. I've finally done

Re: [sidr] wg adoption call for draft-austein-sidr-rpki-oob-setup-00

or not is useful. Note that active support is required for adoption. Silence is a vote against adoption. I am Warren Kumari and I approve this messa^h^h^h^h adoption…. W This adoption call will end on Monday, Dec 2. 2013, (a bit more than the usual two weeks, since both chairs will likely

Re: [sidr] WG Adoption: draft-ymbk-lta-use-cases

On Nov 26, 2013, at 8:39 PM, Chris Morrow morr...@ops-netman.net wrote: Howdy gentle WG folks, The authors of: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-lta-use-cases-00 are interested in starting a WG Adoption call for this piece of scribed text. It would be good if other folk also agreed

Re: [sidr] WG Adoption: draft-ymbk-lta-use-cases

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Murphy, Sandra sandra.mur...@parsons.com wrote: There were four responses to this adoption call, all positive. But four is not a strong indication of wg wishes here. Can others please look at this and speak up as to whether you do or do not support

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov wrote: I support publication of this document as an RFC. As do I. W I have some comments listed below that are meant to help improve clarity. 3.2 (current) A BGPsec design must allow the receiver of a BGP

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 9:56 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote: I’ve reviewed, it’s mostly ready, minor comments: I’m not happy with this text in the intro: “issues of business relationship conformance, of which routing 'leaks' are a subset, while quite important to

Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-origin-validation-signaling-04

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: Could you say please whether this means you support publication or you do not? from a running router policy-statement rpki { term valid { from { protocol bgp;

Re: [sidr] civility in wg interactions

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Sandra Murphy sa...@tislabs.com wrote: Our meeting on Friday saw a couple of cases of inappropriate behavior, where remarks were made that were of a personal nature or that had no bearing on the issue under discussion. We are presently considering an

Re: [sidr] New version : draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-10

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: Per discussion during IDR/SIDR meeting Friday, there may need to be some text in the security considerations around the attack vector of sending many updates with long (but valid) AS_Paths could you please describe how an

Re: [sidr] you gotta love as==0

Huh. I don't really understand what DT is trying to say here -- 80.128.0.0/11 can be announced from 3320, but shouldn't be used? Rudiger? W On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: go to http://rpki.me/quality.html#dl,RIPE,yellow,0,80.128.0.0/11,11 and click on the +

Re: [sidr] Validation Reconsidered (again/again) question

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:58 PM Wes Hardaker wrote: > Christopher Morrow writes: > > > Pinging this thread to catch anyone who didn't reply but had thoughts > > I'd like to close this out tomorrow before 5pm EST (10pm UTC). > > I've been

Re: [sidr] wglc for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-15

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:54 AM Sean Turner wrote: > I re-read the draft and looked at the diffs from -14 and I think this > draft is ready to progress. > Yup. I read it on the plane, looks goot to me. W > > spt > > > On Mar 17, 2016, at 09:33, Sandra Murphy

Re: [sidr] BGPSec RFC status

... and another +1. W On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 4:07 AM Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > > > On 20 Apr 2016, at 00:31, Roque Gagliano (rogaglia) > wrote: > > > > +1 with Standard Track. > > +1 > > > > > The question could have been relevant six years ago and we may not

Re: [sidr] working group adoption call for draft-kklf-sidr-route-server-rpki-light-01

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:06 PM Randy Bush wrote: > > Some people do use route servers, and won't do their own validation - > > I'd rather that they have the information available to make a decision > > than not... > > this glibly glosses over that, by outsourcing origin

[sidr] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-08: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-08: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer

Re: [sidr] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:02 AM Di Ma <m...@zdns.cn> wrote: > Warren, > > Thanks very much for your comments. > > Please see my responses in lines. > > > 在 2018年4月2日，05:02，Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> 写道： > > > > Warren Kumari has entered the f

[sidr] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-07: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https

Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying-16.txt

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 2:17 AM Christopher Morrow wrote: > Howdy sidrops folks, this document was left hanging in SIDR, it probably > was better fit to sidr-ops, so let's get Sean to re-spin a re-named > document, auto-adopt that and chat up any changes/etc between now and > 'meeting time' ? >

Re: [sidr] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-02

ike a fine answer here, I'm not remembering why we would have > swapped to ST from BCP. > > > > On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 11:12 AM Warren Kumari > wrote: > > [ + Sandy, Alvaro ] > > > > On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 9:51 AM Scott Bradner wrote: > > that use of a MUS

Re: [sidr] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rtr-keying-02

[ + Sandy, Alvaro ] On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 9:51 AM Scott Bradner wrote: > that use of a MUST is commendable but its not exactly an interoperability > issue > > to me “must” works in this case (and the other cases in this document) > > but, that said, 2119 has been misused for kinda a long time

Re: [sidr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8416 (7080)

Dear SIDROPS, at al, I believe that this Errata is correct, and I intends to mark it Verified unless I hear a clear objection by this Friday (August 26th). W On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 5:25 PM, Ben Maddison < benm=40workonline.afr...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Adding sidrops@ > > On 08/10, RFC