John, On Dec 3, 2008, at 9:33 PM, John Curran wrote:
As I read the draft, the IANA's role as a trust anchor is no different than any of the RIR's (i.e. each acting as their own trust anchor for their own RPKI hierarchy):
Yes, that is my interpretation of the draft as well.
As written, the IANA might, at its discretion, decide to make use of res certs, but that's not mandatory for this document to be useful.
I don't want to go too far afield on a meta-point, but in the Brave New Internet in which we find ourselves, IANA does not do things at its discretion. IANA implements decisions others make (presumably via some community-based consensus) through IANA Consideration sections or by specific direction of the IAB, IESG, etc. The alternative would be "top down" decision making (oh, the horror) and would require IANA staff to have a level of expertise in a wide array of topic areas that is most likely not reasonable to assume.
With respect to the draft, if SIDR is indicating IANA needs to maintain an RPKI trust anchor (regardless of what it is covering), I believe an IANA considerations section needs to state IANA is directed to do this. I understand that some folks are working on appropriate wording.
Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
