> In general, these changes are fine, and address the naming parent/ > child/IANA/RIR/ISP name game issue.
yep, all good > One issue which is raised is that a RPKI service provider now may > be made subject (with one month's notice) to changes to the CP made by > the IETF. As the CP specifies operational practices, this has > potential to be impacting for the RPKI service provider and ISP's > relying upon such certs. amusing that you use the term ISP when you like the document getting rid of proper noun taxa. > In order to protect those relying ISPs in the case of a CP change > which causes RPKI providers to exit the business, the 9.12.2 > implementation time period to should be long enough to allow ISP's to > move to an RPKI providers now complying with the new CP document. I'd > recommend 6 months advance notice rather than one for this reason. i am confused. i do not understand the relationship of a parent going out of business (irrespective of reason) with the time for an rpki instance to meet a new cp. seems to me thatm if my parent goes out of business, the scramble is to build the peerings with the parent(s) to which my grandparent swings the resources from which my resources are drawn. randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
