> On Nov 5, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Karen Seo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Folks, > > I think the authors have brought up some pertinent issues which have helped > inspire other work which subsumes them. So I thank them but agree that it > seems appropriate to drop this draft since those issues are now being covered > in other documents and those documents have additional detail. Randy's I-D > discusses INR transfers. Steve's draft on adverse action provides a detailed > analysis of the "operational fragility" of the RPKI in the face of attacks > and errors. So, if the adverse actions draft is adopted by the WG, we (the > WG) could use the requirements stemming from these two IDs as the basis for a > solution(s) document. Just personal preference, but I also find having one > document per topic/issue (at least when they're as complex as is the case > with the threat analysis) easier to follow and would also like to separate > defining of issues and their requirements from describing the solution.
If I’m reading your argument correctly, you’re saying that validation-reconsidered is not necessary because Kent’s adverse actions draft provides a solution. Except that it doesn’t. Validation reconsidered stops the harm before it happens, where as the adverse actions draft says two things: 1) monitor and fix the harm after it has happened, and 2) RPs should be smarter. Setting aside the hand-waving and lack of a concrete solution, these are not comparable proposals. -andy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
