Andy,
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.
I can't say what Karen may be thinking, but my argument is that
validation-reconsidered
contains vague arguments about RPKI fragility and a technically
ambiguous description
of a proposed change to 6487. What I believe is needed is a more
rigorous description
of the problems being solved and a clear proposal of how to solve them.
If the
co-authors who said they will assume responsibility for this doc make
significant
revisions along these lines, then maybe the result will be worth pursuing.
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.
The harm described in validation-reconsidered is the generation and
publication of certs that over-claim. The I-D does not stop that harm.
It proposes to sweep it under the rug,
with a bandaid approach (that, as noted earlier) is technically
ambiguous, as stated).
Adverse actions focuses mostly on defining the problem, in a more
precise fashion.
It alludes to solution approaches that prevent the harm from having
immediate,
adverse impact. The "RPs should be smarter" comment seems totally out of
place.
Setting aside the hand-waving and lack of a concrete solution, these are not
comparable proposals.
Your are right that they are not comparable. One is very badly written,
and could be
described as hand waving, and offers a "solution" that isn't well-defined.
The other is well written, defines problems in a rigorous fashion, and,
after
making the changes suggested during the meeting, does not offer a
remediation
proposal.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
