On Sep 8, 2016, at 7:17 PM, Sandra Murphy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
speaking as a regular ol’ member: On Sep 8, 2016, at 11:57 AM, Carlos M. Martinez <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Rob, I’ll let each RIR answer for themselves. In our case (LACNIC), we don’t support up/down. We’ve had a very rough implementation of a ‘parent’ CA for a while, but since there is essentially no demand for it from our members, the project always gets down-prioritized. For ARIN, we have code for both sides of the relationship tested against the Dragon software and some of the other RIRs. We allow for delegated CAs today in production, but the vast majority of network operators do not opt for it. If the GTA was to gain any traction, we’d commit resources accordingly in order to support it from the ‘child’ side. In short: it’s not the availability of up-down what has stalled the GTA. This is the salient point. If you had a client side implementation, then if a GTA did get established, you would be able to interact with the GTA for certification of your resources -- immediately. Additionally, each RIR must establish and actively maintain a parent-child relationship with each other RIR. -andy
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
