On Aug 8, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Sandra Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I’m fine with not characterizing motives and historical context. Just >> following your lead. :) > > I did not mention motives, I mentioned motivations, as in the requirements > that drove the design. That sounds like splitting hairs. > I think I answered that. The RPKI was designed for the prefix allocation > system. In the prefix allocation system, one can allocate only from the > allocation one holds. 3779 also was designed to follow the prefix allocation > system and its rules enforce that allocation behavior. It provided the > features a certification of the prefix allocation system needed, so it was > adopted. Except 3779 goes further, in that if a certificate ever claims more than what has been allocated then NONE of its allocations are valid. > I was attempting to point out that the only other existing system with an > authorization model also follows the same encompassing rule. Again, the > encompassing rule is derived from the behavior of the prefix allocation > system. Which seems to be an answer far afield from “where else is 3779 used?” -andy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
