I support adoption as well. On 3/29/16 12:45 PM, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > Dear working group, > > I support adopting this work. I believe it's useful to think about what can > go wrong. I am happy to see that this document (1) focusses on adverse > actions irrespective of intentional or accidental cause, and (2) does not > suggest a solution. > > I do have one remaining concern, but I hope that this can be addressed: this > document can be perceived as proof of 'all the things wrong / scary' about > RPKI used for origin validation and/or BGPSec. However, to my knowledge, > there is no similar analysis of adverse actions to IRRs. Most of the same > problems exist there - and far worse: RPs do not have the benefit of object > security so they would be largely unaware. I think it would be > counterproductive if this wasn't clear, and the document is abused to make a > point for being better of with simple IRR. > > Regards > Tim > > >> On 11 Mar 2016, at 18:05, Sandra Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This starts an adoption call for draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02. >> >> Please respond on the list if you believe the working group should adopt >> this draft as a work item. The adoption call will end 25 Mar 2016. >> >> Remember that positive support is needed for adoption. Please state whether >> you believe the work should be adopted and whether you will review and >> comment on the work. >> >> The draft is available at >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kent-sidr-adverse-actions-02 >> >> —Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
