perhaps you are right Sandy, its that confusing subject line, "One and Only One RPKI" that triggered my response.
--bill On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:10:26AM -0500, Sandra Murphy wrote: > People seem to be confusing one specification with one trust anchor. > > And also not noting that the ability of a relying party to choose a trust > anchor is a big get-out-of-jail-free card for those who are allergic to > the idea of one root. NOT that I'm recommending using that card. > > --Sandy > > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >if indeed there is agreement on one and only one RPKI, then > >one of the primary advantages of using the IP protocols will > >be lost. > > > >there is -zero- requirement for full, continious interconnectivity > >in the base IP protocol. creation of a mandate for a single, one > >and only RPKI, forces folks into an always on, always connected > >mode ... and i am not sure how well this presumption will work > >for things like mannet/monnet networking. > > > >--bill > > > >_______________________________________________ > >sidr mailing list > >[email protected] > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
