On 4/11/11 6:56 PM, "Stephen Kent" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think the BCP idea is appropriate. I don't agree with your gray > area argument. Let's avoid terms like "desperate." > >> But neither this document (in blessing the idea) nor >> draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-algs (as standards track) is the place for it. > > let's just say we disagree, modulo the idea of putting the milestones in > a BCP.
O.k Sure. Remove the date specification going into the sidr-rpki-algs document and construct whatever words are needed to say that the WG will adopt a BCP work item helped along by the NRO, IANA (and it's operator), IAB etc. Modulo the WG approval and WG Chair's happiness with this direction. :-) > > > > In principle the RIRs & IANA, perhaps the NRO & IANA, would be an > appropriate group to issue such a statement. So far, this process has > been rocky, which is probably why there is an IAB-issused statement > re IANA as a global TA for the RPKI. Nonetheless, this might be a > reasonable split of responsibility, i.e., alg spec through the IETF > process, and milestone publication via an RFC authored by the NRO and > IANA. > I think that is a step forward. I'll look for the revised draft and will read as soon as I can. Terry _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
