I'm not yet convinced that the operational costs justify the potential
weakening of security. So I do not support adoption of the document as
is. I would like to see it split into 2 drafts -- one describing the
problem(s) (perhaps including the aspects Rob has mentioned) with an
analysis of their likely frequency/impact/cost; and then if the WG
agrees one is needed, a separate draft for a solution that would include
an assessment of any reduction in security that results from using this
solution. Perhaps there are solutions that don't require modifying the
RPKI validation. I'm willing to review the resulting drafts.
On 4/25/14 12:05 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
The authors of draft-huston-rpki-validation-01.txt, RPKI Validation
Reconsidered, have requested wg adoption.
See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huston-rpki-validation-01.
Please do respond to the list as to whether you support the wg adopting this as
a work item. You do not need to comment on the content of this draft at this
time. You are asked to indicate if you think that this is work that the wg
should be doing and whether this draft is an acceptable starting point. Adding
whether you can/will review or not is useful.
Note that active support is required for adoption. Silence is a vote against
adoption.
This adoption call will end on 9 May 2014.
--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
