Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-04.txt

sorry I normally follow sidr on the archive... To: sidr wg list sidr at ietf.org Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-04.txt From: Randy Bush randy at psg.com Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:35:57 +0900 Delivered-to: sidr at ietfa.amsl.com In-reply-to:

Re: [sidr] Injecting idea of freshness of repository data into BGP

On 3/29/12 10:24 , Christopher Morrow wrote: On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org wrote: Jakob, On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 03:51:10AM -0400, Jakob Heitz wrote: Could we not put a freshness indication into the BGP update? Then everyone that receives the new update would

Re: [sidr] the need for speed

On 12/18/12 11:48 AM, Randy Bush wrote: I am trying to understand why our fellow engineers at Verisign are obsessed with global propagation of RPKI data on the order of a few minutes. Then a friend hit me with the clue by four. It's about third party DDoS (and other attack) mitigation. When

Re: [sidr] current state of BGP origin verification

On 1/11/13 14:39 , SM wrote: Hi Arturo, At 10:09 11-01-2013, Arturo Servin wrote: I have thinking about a how-to document, however, would be the IETF a place to publish something like that? I don't think that the IETF publishes how-to documents as RFCs. if you're thinking

Re: [sidr] DDoS mitigation example (was: RE: comments on the repository analysis I-D)

On 3/20/13 7:57 PM, Danny McPherson wrote: On Mar 20, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Sriram, Kotikalapudi kotikalapudi.sri...@nist.gov wrote: The DDoS mitigation example was discussed before. It appeared there was a reasonable solution. Please see this post:

Re: [sidr] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-05: (with DISCUSS)

On 5/2/16 10:04 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-05: 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

Re: [sidr] BGPSec RFC status

> On Apr 15, 2016, at 11:09, John G. Scudder wrote: > > All, > > Thanks to Geoff and Tom for pointing out that we do have definitions of what > PS and Experimental mean. If those definitions are wrong (c.f. some of the > comments relating to whether some designation does

[sidr] Proposal for next steps - chartering sidrops?

Folks, Some discussion prior to the recent IETF led us to ask the ask the question about what to do now that SIDR is close to having achieved it's major milestones. One possible approach we have been looking at is to Charter a new activity associated with the deployment and operation of SIDR

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

Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

On 9/14/16 4:14 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> The term “adverse" doesn’t means “hostile" necessarily. > oh bs. it is the first definition in most dictionaries. ad (to) vertere (turn) -> adversus (against). I'm averse to it. > change the word. get over it. > > randy > >

Re: [sidr] Proposal for next steps - chartering sidrops?

n’t fall into the category of ‘network operators’. > > I would suggest the “The goals of the sidr-ops working group” be adjusted > slightly, with CA operators, repository operators, RP service providers > involved. yeah I think the tent should be inclusive. > > Di > >>

[sidr] Updated status information for sidrops formation

Folks, Some notes on the status of the sidrops proposal. The proposed charter passed internal reivew in the IESG. it is awaiting another editorial pass prior to going for external review. That process is expected to complete prior to IETF 97. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sidrops/charter/ A

Re: [sidr] AD Review of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-10

On 12/7/16 1:07 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > otoh, private AS numbers are used in non-confed topologies, e.g. the bgp > stub customer who uses a private AS. they should not sign of course. > but once i receive their announcement and strip the private AS, > can/should i sign? i just looked at