On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Randy Bush wrote:
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, as I read John's note, when he says "RPKI service provider" he
means the CertsRUs business which the ISP has outsourced all its cert
handling activity to.
It sounds to me like you were reading that as an upstream ISP.
--Sandy
randy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
