Folks,
At the SIDR meeting this week, I proposed that we add text to the ROA
I-D to explicitly describe issuing a ROA with a reserved ASN, e.g.,
0. The intent of this convention is to prevent unauthenticated
assertions about prefixes from being accepted during the very long,
incremental deployment period.
I received a rousing, negative response to this proposal, so It will
not be added to the ROA format I-D. (I do note that, even without
establishing this convention, any ROA issuer is free to achieve the
effect I described by issuing a ROA to any ASN that is not going to
be allocated, e.g., ASN 0 or the ASN's being reserved for
documentation use in an forthcoming RFC.)
Based on this response, I believe that the BOA I-D would have
received an equally negative reception, if it had been briefed. I
note that BOA processing requires additional logic to achieve what
appears to be an largely equivalent effect, while the ROA convention
I proposed has the desired effect without any new processing logic.
I am surprised that the BOA I-D, which is now in WGLC, has not
generated any comments. So, I suggest, with regret, that the BOA I-D
is not acceptable to the WG, but has simply not received negative
comments because of the focus on other WG documents at this time. If
folks believe otherwise, I'd like to hear why.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
