I may misunderstand this, but my belief is that *ONLY* hierarchical AS-
SET form of named sets can logistically be signed over, because they
are the only ones which have a single entity (the hierarchical tagger)
that can claim to own the set relationship. Which RPKi EE cert would
glue all the set elements together?
Ie, anonymous named sets are 'hard' to sign. but the hierarchical ones
are sort-of definitionally the best ones to use, and sign. The signing
cert will relate to the single ASXXXX binding the list set.
-George
On 18/11/2008, at 10:23 AM, Larry Blunk wrote:
I would support adoption. Would perhaps like to
see some consideration of hierarchical named sets
(i.e. ASXXXX:AS-CUSTOMERS).
-Larry Blunk
Robert Kisteleki wrote:
Hi,
After my (rushed) presentation yesterday I'd like to ask if there
are people in the WG who think that this idea is worth pursuing and
should it be a WG item?
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kisteleki-sidr-rpsl-sig-00.txt
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/sidr-3.pdf
Regards,
Robert
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
