Agreed, I think the draft is useful (although I'm with George here, my RPSL is rusty at best)
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Benno Overeinder <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > -- -- ========================= Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo h <http://cagnazzo.name>ttp://cagnazzo.me =========================
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
