I guess I should have also said that I support moving this draft down
the path towards publication.
spt
On 3/4/13 6:40 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
I'll go along with that.
I'm not seeing any major structural alterations to the draft (at this stage) by
doing that.
Cheers,
Terry
On 02/03/2013, at 2:37 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <[email protected]> wrote:
Great... so assuming the authors deal with this set of comments we'll
ask them to spin a new version and submit that for WGLC when it
arrives?
Does that seem like a good path for those still listening?
-chris
co-chair-1-of-3
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
Below are some comments on the draft. I also submitted my nits to the
editors.
0) Based on the assumption that draft-newton-sidr-policy-qualifiers will be
adopted because that's what the RIRs want should s1.2 or 1.5 also include
some information about where it can be found? This information would be
identical to the URI included in the policy qualifier?
1) s1.6: CP - Is it worth nothing that there might be another CP for the
BPKI?
2) s4.6.1: Not sure if this needs to go here but don't we need to say
something about not renewing certificates forever?
3) draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying describes the procedures for operator
generated keys (i.e., those that are not router generated). A couple of
questions come to mind:
a) Should the CPS point to that draft in s6.1.2 or will the CPS be updated
when draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying is published?
b) draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying allows operators sign the private keys they
generate and subsequently send back to the router. Should this be
explicitly called out in s4.5.1. For s.4.5.2, is the returned signed-key an
RPKI-Signed Object?
spt
On 2/21/13 11:30 PM, Chris Morrow wrote:
WG folks,
As the subject states, let's please start a WGLC poll for the document:
draft-ietf-sidr-cps-01
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-cps-01>
with the abstract:
"This document contains a template to be used for creating a
Certification Practice Statement (CPS) for an Organization that is
part of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), e.g., a
resource allocation registry or an ISP."
So far the authors have made a few revisions, with updates based on
comments/feedback, at this time the document has been stable for more
than 6 months time, let's move this along if there are no further
issues/addendums/questions/appendixes.
thanks!
-chris
co-chair-1-of-3
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
