On Dec 3, 2008, at 3:33 PM, David Conrad wrote:
[No hat]
Hi,
I have been avoiding raising any issues on the res-cert draft for
political reasons, however I believe the draft is flawed in a non-
political way in that section 6.3 makes reference to IANA acting in
some capacity as a trust anchor yet the IANA Considerations section
states:
"[Note to IANA, to be removed prior to publication: there are no
IANA considerations stated in this document.]"
Either IANA is acting in some capacity as a trust anchor and as a
result there ARE IANA considerations
- OR -
IANA is not acting in in some capacity as a trust anchor in which
case the absence of IANA considerations is appropriate, but section
6.3 needs to be revised to make explicit that IANA is NOT involved
in the RPKI trust hierarchy.
You can't have both.
Hopefully this comment will not trigger political sensitivities
regarding IANA's role in the RPKI.
FWIW, I raised the same concern yesterday on the list via
comments made on the sidr-arch draft:
---
IANA Considerations surely should include some guidance to
IANA about investigation and preparation for anything that might
be required WRT serving as a TA. Also, for legacy space, etc..
In general, I like to see more description and discussion of the
TA model here, as others (e.g., Roque on 11/17/08) and previous
discussions seem to support as well.
---
-danny
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
