At Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:22:34 +0100, Tim Bruijnzeels <t...@ripe.net> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > > On 08 Nov 2016, at 00:26, Chris Morrow <morr...@ops-netman.net> wrote: > > > > Draft Agenda was uploaded moments ago. > > > > I'm sure I missed something(s) > > > > I'm also sure I signed Tim up for at least 2 things he wasn't prepared > > for (and may not be required) > > I see one item with my name, and two others that might have my name implied.
noting that i said: 'draft agenda' :) > > As far as I am concerned I don't need to talk about any of them. But I'm happy to yield time back to the randy-proposed-content, it's also interesting to me. > if the WG feels differently I am happy to - then I would like a bit > more guidance though on what to address exactly. Quoting below: > > > 3- RRDP/HTTPS - Tim Bruijnzeels 15 min > > The document went through last call and was sent to the IESG on 26 > October. If the WG feels it's useful to give an overview of this > work once more then I can certainly do so - but I expect it's not > needed and it's better to use face to face time for other things. Of > course I would be more than happy to discuss this work in person as > well. > > > 4- Updates to ROA/BGPSEC Router Cert Profiles 20 min > > I am confused by this item. Is this because of the updates to these > documents we included in reconsidered, which is #6? > > > 6- Validation Reconsidered mish/mash 10 min > > We went through last call, and then I indicated I would be more > confident if people reviewed the ASN.1 and OID changes. Sean Turner > did a quick check - thanks :) I want to be really careful here and > not take a seat on the chair, but.. it seems to me that unclarities > and concerns were addressed. > excellent. (I agree things seem settled) > If not, then I am of course willing to talk about this once more, > but would ask the WG to be specific about which aspect should be > re-discussed or presented. > let's skip your bits then and concentrate on the newly proposed interop discussion. > > it's a draft :) > > no worries, appreciated. > > One other thing that I may want to discuss is the future of > tree-validation. Not so much the content, but the idea of having (a) > document(s) in this WG (or SIDR-OPS in future) that describes a > specific implementation. There are two issues: 1) implementation is > a moving target, so we will need updates in future, 2) the > implementation is not generic (would individual submission be more > appropriate? WG feedback was very valuable). > happy to add this to the 'draft agenda'. > We recently uploaded a version that reflects our 2.23 validator > implementation. We indicated that we want to go for last-call on > this as soon as possible (I understand that IETF process will mean > this will probably be after Seoul). And we indicated that for future > updates we plan to document small changes just as notes in the > README/RELEASE NOTES of the code, but that we would seek to document > more substantial changes through the IETF again in future. > > My questions to the WG would be: = Does the proposal make sense to > you? = Do you agree that these documents can be WG documents? - We > value the feedback - We include the feedback in the document - > currently in security considerations - BUT the content of the > document reflects actual implementation, not desired implementation. > = Is there a useful parallel to IETF documents describing other > open-source implementations? > > ..or -- I have a preference for having RFCs for this, because I > think the review will be more thorough and independent, but -- we > can also just discuss this in the WG, but not as an IETF document, > and then just include the documents with our validator releases > instead? > > this bit does sound like good topic for the meeting discusion. let's add this to the 'draft agenda' as well. (as i say above) > > Cheers > Tim > > > > > > > -chris > > > > _______________________________________________ > > sidr mailing list > > sidr@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
