I am also in favour of pursuing this draft.  I do see a benefit in
signing RPSL objects.

I understand the argument of Randy: with the keys in the RPKI one can
sign anything such as bank transactions, and indeed that doesn't mean we
have to do so.  But RPSL objects are close to the practice of routing,
just like RPKI.  And although technically they are different
infrastructures, operationally both technologies are used for
overlapping goals.  I also see advantages for deployment and transition
strategies.  And there are situations in which ISPs will keep using RPSL
and the added authoritative information from RPKI would be a great plus.

If the WG thinks this work should proceed, I am available as an
additional author/editor of the draft (given the current authors agree
with suggestion of chairs).

-- Benno

On 08/23/2013 12:48 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
> I believe this work is important and should continue, and be adopted by
> the WG as a deliverable. RPKI has the capability to provide PKI
> assurance over information which lies outside of BGP, as well as
> informing BGP, and I think constructing the appropriate formalisms over
> signing of RPSL objects will materially enhance trust in the statements
> made in RPSL, relating to internet number resources.
> 
> I have no competency to work on this draft. I would encourage others to
> get involved.
> 
> -George
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Murphy, Sandra
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>     The authors of the draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig have both indicated that
>     they see a need for this draft and are still interested in pursuing
>     the work.
> 
>     But they both have been appointed to positions that put strong
>     demands on their time.
> 
>     Therefore, they would like some indication from the wg that the wg
>     also is interested in pursuing the work.
> 
>     And the co-chairs think it would be helpful to have an additional
>     author/editor on this draft.
> 
>     So.
> 
>     Please do state whether you believe the wg should continue work in
>     this area.  Responses by 5 Sep, please.
> 
>     If you would be interested in serving as an additional author on
>     this draft, please do say so.
> 
>     --Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
>     _______________________________________________
>     sidr mailing list
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
> 

-- 
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

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

Reply via email to