Hey Steve,

On Nov 4, 2011, at 4:45 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:

> Eric,
> 
> 1- Yes, there is a need for global coordination for alg transition, under the 
> design  presented. If you have an alternative proposal, please share it. This 
> design was originally documented in June, 2010, in an individual I-D authored 
> by me.  It has been briefed at several SIDR WG meetings, starting at IETF 78 
> in July, 2010. This is not new.

I can appreciate that this document represents some long standing thought and 
effort.  However, the fact that I believe there is a flaw does not seem to need 
the support of an alternate design, right?  I'm pointing out an operational 
misalignment in _this_ design.  I think to offer an alternative at the same 
time as we are discussing a shortcoming here would be an inappropriate 
conflation (i.e. I think that would confuse this issue with another).

So, more specifically: I think that trying to mandate global coordination at 
this scale is an operational non-starter.  Why can't the design be made to 
accommodate different choices of algorithms and different operational 
schedules?  I think this is actually a requirement: that operational entities 
be able to choose their own schedules and make their own configuration choices.

> 
> 2- Not exactly. The milestones, as well as the alg suite spec, will appear in 
> a revised version of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-algs. Any operational problem that 
> requires a delay in any transition phase would be brought to the attention of 
> the IESG (if the SIDR WG is no longer active) requesting that a this RFC be 
> re-issued, with new milestone values for the affected phase(s).

I'm sorry, but I really think this is likely to have trouble in a real 
operational setting.  I don't think anyone would claim that the IETF's 
processes operate at the same pace as operations.  For instance, if there is an 
emergency at the last minute of this roll, can the working group be expected to 
mint a new RFC and disseminate in short order (say, days)?  There is a vey 
fundamental misalignment here: creating standards and managing operations are 
very loosely coupled.  I think this is a very inappropriate place to try to 
enforce operational schedules.

Eric
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Reply via email to