On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Arturo Servin <[email protected]> wrote: > > There has been a lot of discussion about different topics related, I wasn't > sure what we were going to discuss.
hoping to actually get a running list started of 'topics that need time for discussion', perhaps on the wiki even :) > Thanks for clearing this out. trying my best :) > Regards, > as > > On 12 Apr 2012, at 11:38, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > > Hi, > > On 12 Apr 2012, at 04:16, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Arturo Servin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chris, > > > For the agenda item: "Deployment Discussion -> Discuss the need, and > publication location/method, for documentation that details rollout of SIDR > technologies in an operational network." Are we going to discuss what Tim > suggested in his e-mail on March 30th (subject: rpki repository and > validation issues). I think he pointed out three valid points to discuss (at > least start with the first 2 as he suggested): > > > > Actually no, Tim wanted to be able to present/be-in-person so the next > time he can do that is the coincident meeting with IETF in Vancouver, > BC. > > > Indeed, I can't make the 30 April interim meeting (not even remote). And > it's also too short notice to bring more real measurements and experience (& > measurements) from piloting possible alternatives to the table. > > > I agree with Randy (if I understand his point correctly) that measurements > are needed to substantiate any discussion about the problems and possible > alternatives. So... we actually plan to work on this over the following > weeks (after the RIPE meeting): > > - Add an automated feedback feature to our validator so that we can get > statistics from wherever people run it (if they enable the feature). We're > thinking of measuring: > = average time to validate enabled TAs > = frequency of rsync repositories being unavailable > = frequency of validation corner cases occurring because we get a repo > *while it is being updated* (eg mft out-of-sync with some object) > = I am open to suggestions of other stuff to measure.. > > - Do a quick pilot implementation of some ideas: > = Use an rss like notification mechanism to alert RPs of updates > = Use http to fetch *consistent* deltas > = And then do the same measurements as above and possibly more we can > think of (like some controlled load stressing) > > Of course there are lots of details involved here that are interesting to > discuss with other RP implementers, RPKI publishers and the sidr wg at > large, but... we feel that at this stage we want to mature and try out our > ideas first so that when we bring this to the table we'll have a reasonable > idea of whether it actually works in real code and helps to solve the real > issues that we see. In short: we want to invest some energy in trying it out > first, and then discuss more, rather than the other way around.. > > Planning can always change, but it looks like we should be able to do this > without spending too many of our resources and in time to report about it in > Vancouver. > > For the time being we will use the list of problems and requirements that I > formulated as a guideline for this pilot, but I am well aware that that list > is subject to change when it's discussed in more detail in sidr on-list or > at a meeting.. > > > Tim > > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
