From sidr-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 29 11:31:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-sidr-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C94128C2DC; Thu, 29 May 2008 11:31:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: sidr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A3B3A69A0 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 11:31:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ErLoM9Oshzna for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 11:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nutshell.tislabs.com (ns1.tislabs.com [192.94.214.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721A33A6BDD for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 11:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nutshell.tislabs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id m4TI2MS2021992 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 14:02:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nodnsquery(10.66.1.30) by nutshell.tislabs.com via csmap (V6.0) id srcAAAKaa48Q; Thu, 29 May 08 14:02:22 -0400 Received: by pecan.tislabs.com (Postfix, from userid 2005) id 26C9C3F4A2; Thu, 29 May 2008 14:05:16 -0400 (EDT) To: sidr@ietf.org Message-Id: <20080529180516.26C9C3F4A2@pecan.tislabs.com> Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:05:16 -0400 (EDT) From: sandy@tislabs.com (Sandy Murphy) Cc: sandy@tislabs.com Subject: [Sidr] ROA Validation, Repository Structure, and Bogon drafts X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: sidr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: sidr-bounces@ietf.org I am disappointed at the lack of response to the question of acceptance of three drafts (ROA validation, repository structure, and bogons) from the Philly meeting as wg items. The questions went out to the list in April. Each draft got exactly one response. In each case, the response was positive. But that's hardly enough to be judged "consensus". It might be judged "apathy", though. Please, people. Respond. Positively or negatively, we need to decide whether the working group should adopt each topic as part of our work. The messages you should respond to are: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg00401.html (for draft-huston-sidr-bogons-01.txt - a new version has been announced since, so the correct link is http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huston-sidr-bogons-01.txt) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg00402.html for draft-huston-sidr-repos-struct-01.txt http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg00403.html for draft-huston-sidr-roa-validation-00.txt --Sandy _______________________________________________ Sidr mailing list Sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From sidr-bounces@ietf.org Thu May 29 16:02:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-sidr-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7196E3A6901; Thu, 29 May 2008 16:02:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: sidr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913303A6A7D for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 16:02:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GbsiL+wAMEpN for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 16:02:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sceest04.correodeempresas.inf (sceest04.correodeempresas.telefonica.es [212.170.236.199]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C505E3A6901 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 16:02:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.webmail.telefonica.com (213.4.105.229) by sceest04.correodeempresas.inf (7.3.135) id 483D2EEC00001CC4 for sidr@ietf.org; Fri, 30 May 2008 01:02:32 +0200 From: alonso.garciagarcia@wholesale.telefonica.com To: sidr@ietf.org Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 01:00:28 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on SGTELMADSM0101/SRV/SMTPCorp(Release 6.5.4FP3|January 09, 2006) at 30/05/2008 01:02:25 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Sidr] =?iso-8859-1?q?Alonso_Garcia_Garcia/TIWS_est=E1_ausente_de?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_la_oficina=2E?= X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: sidr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: sidr-bounces@ietf.org Estar=E9 ausente de la oficina desde el 23/05/2008 y no volver=E9 hasta el 16/06/2008. Responder=E9 a su mensaje cuando regrese. En mi ausencia contactar con =C1l= varo Alonso (alvaro.alonso@wholesale.telefonica.com) (+34) 91 483 06 57 I will be out of the office since May 23th till June 16th. During my absence, contact =C1lvaro Alonso (alvaro.alonso@wholesale.telefonica.com) (+34) 91 483 06 57 _______________________________________________ Sidr mailing list Sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From sidr-bounces@ietf.org Fri May 30 11:11:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-sidr-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96F73A6937; Fri, 30 May 2008 11:11:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: sidr@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421A03A68A4 for ; Fri, 30 May 2008 11:11:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RBijrGZgsleC for ; Fri, 30 May 2008 11:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx12.bbn.com (mx12.bbn.com [128.33.0.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E7A3A6937 for ; Fri, 30 May 2008 11:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp89-089-071.bbn.com ([128.89.89.71]) by mx12.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K294x-00064Y-43; Fri, 30 May 2008 14:11:51 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20080529180516.26C9C3F4A2@pecan.tislabs.com> References: <20080529180516.26C9C3F4A2@pecan.tislabs.com> Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:11:53 -0400 To: sandy@tislabs.com (Sandy Murphy) From: Stephen Kent Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Sidr] ROA Validation, Repository Structure, and Bogon drafts X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: sidr-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: sidr-bounces@ietf.org Sandy, I reiterate my support for pursing the ROA validation I-D. We need the level of detail that Geoff has provided in this document, that goes beyond what is currently in the ROA I-D. They probably could be combined into one document, if the WG wants, but the info is essential. I also want to express my support for the Repository Structure I-D. The info contained in this document is critical to completing the architecture description. The architecture references this doc. As for BOAs, I do like the notion. Some concern have been expressed that the construct may be too powerful. I think the WG should continue to discuss the topic and decide whether the notion can be made "safe" enough to satisfy the concerns that have been raised, or if we have to drop it. We can agree to adopt a document now, but that does not mean that we will eventually approve it, right? Steve _______________________________________________ Sidr mailing list Sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr