If you look at the minutes of the November meeting: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/minutes/sidr.html
you will see that there was a discussion in the later part of the meeting about the ROA. The discussion started out to be whether the resource certificate prefix should exactly match the prefix in the ROA. It segued to a discussion of whether the ROA "allows more specifics or not" (ed: in route advertisements). There were speakers on either side (exact match vs more specifics) and no consensus was reached. This was to be taken to the list. Those who were speaking at the mike are hearby urged to speak more about the topic on the list. An example to highlight the issue: if you hold a delegation of a /18, and you anticipate the possibility of advertising longer prefixes, can you create the ROA for the /18 and it will authorize any advertisement of a longer prefix, or must you create a new ROA for each longer prefix you decide to advertise? --Sandy _______________________________________________ Sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
