At 9:53 AM -0800 11/4/09, John Curran wrote:
Steve -
In general, these changes are fine, and address the naming
parent/child/IANA/RIR/ISP name game issue.
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. 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.
Thanks,
/John
John,
Fair point. I thought about the 1 month value when I was editing the
text, having not looked at it for a long time. I thought that the
IESG/RFC process was sufficiently long that anyone who was watching
would have a lot more than 1 month advance notice :-). However, not
everyone who might be affected would necessarily be tracking a
proposed change, and the change would, not be definite until approved
by the IESG. So, I think this is very reasonable change this value to
be 6 months.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
