On Aug 6, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > Carlos, > > ... >> Given that S-BGP failed to gain any traction and most people outside the >> IETF have never heard of it, I don´t think it sets a particularly >> encouraging precedent. > You asked why 3779. I explained. The were many reasons why S-BGP > didn't succeed, but use of 3779 is not likely one of them. >> There is nothing wrong with the extension, nor with the rules per-se. >> Some of us believe that 3779 rules are not a good match for this >> particular problem. They may very well be for other, related, problem >> domains (whole network transfers come to mind now). > The SIDR WG began meeting in 2006, I believe. The SIDR arch doc was first > posted > (as an accepted WG I-D) on 2/28/07. It cited 3779 as the basis for the RPKI.
Either the question Carlos has asked is unanswered or the answer is using circular logic. I cannot tell which. The question was about why, in this effort, we are using 3779 validation rules, and the answer appears to be because a past, failed effort used them. Is there really no technical justification? > It seems curious to me that it has taken 7 years for senior RIR tech staff to > determine that there is a problem. You are relatively new to this effort, but > what > is the excuse for your co-authors? C’mon Steve. You're better than this. -andy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
