Hi, I also support this document, it is an important part of the puzzle and concur with Steve comment about rcyninc references.
More reviews later on. Roque On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > I am in favor of adopting this document, with one (hopefully minor) > exception. > > I'm concerned that this document cites "rcynic" vs. "rsync" as the protocol > to employ for access to the RPKI repository. There has been a moderate > amount of effort to make the IESG comfortable with citing rsync in an RFC. > I see no need to adopt a variant of this base protocol as a standard for > RPKI access. I also note that BBN's relying party code uses rsync, not > rcynic, for such access. > > Steve > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
