I have had two requests for clarification of what I said below. The roa-validation draft is currently "Intended status: Informational". There will be no change, so it stays Informational.
The pfx-validate draft is currently "Intended status: Standards Track". There will be no change, so it stays Standards Track. Is that clearer? --Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: Murphy, Sandra > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 9:38 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Murphy, Sandra > Subject: RE: WG LC for draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-10 > > There was a short intense discussion of the intended RFC status of this > draft and the draft draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate: Informational or > Standards. As wg chair, I saw several opinions expressed (one of them > mine as wg member), none agreeing. > > A query went to a handful of potential customers of this work > (implementers and operators), asking that if this issue mattered to them > they express their opinion on the list. > > No opinion was expressed. > > The on-list opinions varied too much to call wg consensus for change in > this matter. > > Therefore no change in status is necessary in this draft or in draft-ietf- > sidr-pfx-validate. > > The WGLC period concluded long ago. I am satisfied that the working group > consensus is that the draft is worthy of publication. I have started the > process of advancing the draft for publication. Sorry for the delayed > notice to the group. > > --Sandy, speaking with wg co-chair snood on > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Murphy, Sandra > > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 12:02 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: WG LC for draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-10 > > > > > > Geoff Huston has requested a WG LC for draft "Validation of Route > > Origination using the Resource Certificate PKI and ROAs". > > > > The document and the draft version history are available at > > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sidr/draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation. > > > > The Last Call will end Wed, 1 Dec 2010 (AOE). > > > > As usual, please address all comments to the WG mailing list, and > > please be clear in your comments to this last call if you are > > supporting the document's submission to the IESG or if you are > > opposed. If you are opposed, please indicate why. > > > > --Sandy, speaking with wg chair turban on _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
