Thank you for this response. As I had noted earlier, if you had made it clearer in which role you were posting in these discussions it would be easier for others, or at least myself, to understand when you were making pronouncements as WG chair and when you were asking questions and airing opinions as an individual participant.
If proxy aggregation is "not part of our work" then the outcome of such actions, namely AS Sets in the AS_PATH is likewise "not part of our work." I will edit the roa validation draft accordingly. On 29/04/2010, at 3:16 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: > I have said that it was the consensus even before sidr was officially a wg > that proxy aggregation would not be part of our work. And I pointed to the > email archive for that discussion. > > You have said that you do not believe that it is possible at this point, so I > don't think that you are unhappy with that statement. > > So I am confused as to what further statement I could make that would help at > this point. > > Can you point me to where you still see a problem? > > --Sandy > > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010, Geoff Huston wrote: > >> three weeks ago I asked: >> >>> >>> It seems to me that the essential requirements for securing proxy >>> aggregation are missing at this stage, which makes it somewhat difficult >>> for SIDR to work on mechanisms without some re-spinning of the SIDR WG >>> Charter (or some other WG) that would permit the preliminary work on >>> security requirements relating to proxy aggregation to come first. >>> >>> So my question to the WG Co-chairs is: is work on securing Proxy >>> Aggregation within the current SIDR charter? If so, on what basis? >> >> I would hope that by now the WGchairs have had sufficient time to consider >> this question, so I'd like to ask once more: Is work on securing Proxy >> Aggregation within the current SIDR Charter? If so, on what basis? >> >> >> regards, >> >> Geoff >> >> _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
