Hi, The point that I was trying to make, but maybe not clearly, is that rpki-tree-validation is indeed intended as an Informational document specifically detailing our implementation only, but that the RP implementers discussed earlier during WG sessions that we might want to create a generalised RP requirement, or even BCP validation document at a later stage. So I was just somewhat surprised to see this come up.
That being said, we are all busy, so I have no problem with you taking the lead in the effort to document the generalised RP requirements instead. Especially as an Informational document referencing the authoritative docs - as it seems to do. Tim > On 30 Jun 2016, at 07:09, Declan Ma <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, all, > > Speaking as the co-author of ‘Requirements for Resource Public Key > Infrastructure (RPKI) Relying Parties’, > > In addition to the clarification made by Steve, I would like to deliver a > clear message here that this draft is intended to make the RP requirements > well framed, which are segmented with orthogonal functionalities in different > sections. > > As such, those ‘functional components’ could be crafted and distributed > across the operational timeline of an RP software . > > We would appreciate your comments on this document. > > Di > ZDNS > > >> 在 2016年6月29日，02:19，Stephen Kent <[email protected]> 写道： >> >> Although I was not present at the BA SIDR meeting, I did participate >> remotely for one of the sessions. I recall the discussion of the I-D that >> tries to collect all of the RP requirements in one place, with cites to the >> sources of these requirements. It part, I recall folks at the mic arguing >> that this I-D was redundant relative to the existing WG document on tree >> validation. I don't think this is an accurate comparison of the two docs, >> although I agree that there is overlap between them. >> >> RPKI tree validation describes how the RIPE RP software works. It includes >> references to 6 SIDR RFCs to explain why the software performs certain >> checks. The RP requirements doc cites 11 SIDR RFCs, plus the BGPsec (router >> cert) profile. Thus it appears that the requirements doc tries to address a >> wider set of RFCs relevant to RP requirements. More importantly, the >> requirements doc is generic, while the tree validation doc is expressly a >> description of one RP implementation. Thus it is an example of how that >> implementation tries to meet the RP requirements, not a general >> characterization of RP requirements. >> >> >> Thus I think it appropriate to proceed with both docs. >> >> Steve >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
