| > | > As others have suggested, when "I have been allocated | > | 203.10.60.0/22", | > | > I issue an ROA for 203.10.60.0/22-22. That automatically means | > that | > | > there can't be any other advertisements for this prefix or its | > more | > | > specifics (unless I suballocate a more specific block and a new | > ROA | > | > gets added to the repository for that]. Is there any case | > | that's not | > | > handled by doing this? | > | > | > | | > | That's your _assumption_ of the sematics of a ROA. What reference | > | material or working group draft can you cite for semantic | > | interpretation of a ROA? | > | draft-ieft-sidr-roa-validation? I don't think so. The | point of hte | > | BOA draft it that it challenges this assumption by taking the | > | position that such route aorigination authorities are explicitly | > | scoped to the authority described in the object, without the | > | implicit inclusion of any other authority or denial. | > | > So are you saying that an entity who is not owner of prefix | 10/8 can | > issue an ROA for it and it would be present in/added to the RPKI | > repository? | > | | The best answer I can give here is please read the sidr | drafts. Your question really makes me suspect that you have | not done so.
I have. Your response above prompted the question. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
