I support the adoption and willing to review..
..and I have some concerns about the terms of "valid", "invalid". ("Unknown"
I like).
This may only be semantics, but the valid and invalid terms convey more than
a preference level. IE if a database prefix set covers an UPDATE prefix then
the UPDATE route, in my mind, would be preferred over one that was, using
the draft notation, 'invalid'.
It may be that my concern shouldn't be covered in pfx-validate, or the use
of valid and invalid should be constrained to just talking about the RPKI
validation result, and different terminology used when matching UPDATE
prefixes to RPKI validation result sets. Or the section on policy might need
to be expanded.
Cheers
Terry
On 13/05/10 7:23 AM, "Sandra Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pradosh Mohapatra has requested that the working group adopt the draft
> draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-07.txt as a work item.
>
> This work has been presented at IETF 73, IETF 75, and IETF 77.
>
> It is available at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-07
>
> Recall that active support for adoption is necessary for the wg chairs to
> judge acceptance as a working group work item, so silence works against
> adoption. The wg chairs also want to know who would be willing to work on
> the draft.
>
> Please respond to the list, giving your recommendation for or against
> adoption of the draft as a wg work item as well as your intention to work
> on the draft if adopted. The call for adoption will end in two weeks on
> May 26.
>
> --Sandy, speaking as wg chair
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
