I'm not opposed to this idea, though I still don't know how this will shake out against rsync. Frankly, it would be simpler if there were just one mechanism, and perhaps that question ought to be asked of the working group. I do not think we are doing the broader community any favors by specifying two methods. I share the discomfort some people have with rsync and feel that an HTTP approach would be easier to troubleshoot and manipulate operationally.
That being said, this draft does not appear to be revised with feedback from the last IETF. Without clarification and modification, the algorithm specified in this draft would have serious performance issues with HTTPS. So, when are we expecting a draft revision that addresses this issue and the others brought forward in Dublin? -andy On 10/10/08 10:58 AM, "Sandra Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Terry Manderson submitted a new draft "RPKI Repository Retrieval > Mechanism" in repsonse to comments received. The draft is available at > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manderson-sidr-fetch-00.txt. > > He asks for adoption of the draft as a sidr work item. > > I'm opening the question of whether this should be adopted as a wg work > item. Please respond, indicating whether you are for or against > adoption and whether you would participate in that work. > > The question is open for two weeks. Respond by Friday, Oct 22. > > --Sandy > > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
