inline. On Mar 20, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Danny McPherson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2013-03-20 09:00, Roque Gagliano (rogaglia) wrote: > >> I do not believe the work has been peer-reviewed and I detected a >> couple of bizarre statements (such as deleting an object = revocation >> or the idea of "overwriting" a ROA to replace an existing one). > > Much of the work presented here is not "peer reviewed'. Paper is here: > > http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe/papers/RPKImanip.html > > I'm sure the authors would welcome comments. > >> What I believe it adds to our work are a number of scenarios on how >> to implement grand-parenting (not all valid) if we ever decide to take >> that problem. >> >> What specific finding(s) concerns you? > > The general observation as an operator that this would potentially impact my > operations (and reachability to my peers, etc..) but is outside of my > control, and that sufficient buffers are required here. Nothing new, just > another datapoint for folks with various perspectives.. > got it. Roque > -danny > > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
