Thanks to David for identifying this problem initially and= to everyone else who contributed to this discussion.

I = am happy to update the document to reflect the working group consensus. My = goal is to get a revised version of the document to the working group somet= ime late next week (e.g. Oct 17).

- Matt Lepinski<= /div>

On Tue= , Oct 6, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> = wrote:

This conversation seems to have come to a close.

The wg chairs see wg consensus as follows:

The problem is real enough to merit a protocol change.

The change is to cover more raw info in the signatures, rather than signatu= re chaining only, along the lines of
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/= sidr/current/msg07258.html
(see also the new archiving tool https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/sXUj7lgieri0Wrv5PK5u7PfLtxc).

In addition, maintaining ordering was also noted as important to some
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/= sidr/current/msg07261.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/= sidr/current/msg07270.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/= sidr/current/msg07271.html

The authors of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-13 are requested to submit a= revised version of the draft.

The changes are significant enough that the revised draft will go through a= wglc, focussed on the changes for this issue, so shorter than normal.

=E2=80=94Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs

_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

--089e0111d7a0f9568b05218517fa-- From nobody Wed Oct 7 08:20:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28CEC1A92FB; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:20:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3kJRYImVi8Ee; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uu.ops-netman.net (maild1.aptea.com [206.112.93.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D048D1AC3C4; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ops-netman.net (unknown [208.76.12.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uu.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74AFBC009D; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:20:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from morrowc-glaptop4.roam.corp.google.com.ops-netman.net (dhcp-220-102.meetings.nanog.org [199.187.220.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7987880FD3; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 11:20:17 -0400 Message-ID: From: Chris Morrow To: sidr-chairs@ietf.org,sidr@ietf.org User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Organization: Operations Network Management, Ltd. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Subject: [sidr] Agenda Items Request - Yokohama X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:20:25 -0000 Howdy folks, We'll be in Yokohama in meeting rooms... so we should have agenda items. Speak up now pls for meeting topics! -chris co-chair From nobody Wed Oct 7 08:23:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13921A924A; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:23:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jPqTLv52YAOO; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uu.ops-netman.net (morrowc-1-pt.tunnel.tserv13.ash1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:7:36e::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAB281AC3E8; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ops-netman.net (unknown [208.76.12.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uu.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06BC5C038B; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:23:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from morrowc-glaptop4.roam.corp.google.com.ops-netman.net (dhcp-220-102.meetings.nanog.org [199.187.220.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3300880E75; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:23:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 11:23:37 -0400 Message-ID: From: Chris Morrow To: sidr-chairs@ietf.org,sidr@ietf.org User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Organization: Operations Network Management, Ltd. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Subject: [sidr] WG Adoption: draft-dseomn-sidr-slurm X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:23:40 -0000 Howdy WG folks! the adoption call for: draft-dseomn-sidr-slurm is long since past, but I think despite the mild reply set, taking the work on seems acceptable to the WG, let's re-issue a re-named draft and discuss more on the list. Authors pls follow the 'publish new draft' process, thanks! -Chris From nobody Wed Oct 7 08:32:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D9C1AC40C; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:32:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ecc8wbOGbIPN; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uu.ops-netman.net (morrowc-1-pt.tunnel.tserv13.ash1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:7:36e::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB1961AC40B; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 08:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ops-netman.net (unknown [208.76.12.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uu.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00EC3C086B; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:32:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from morrowc-glaptop4.roam.corp.google.com.ops-netman.net (dhcp-220-102.meetings.nanog.org [199.187.220.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3B78881144; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:32:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 11:32:06 -0400 Message-ID: From: Chris Morrow To: sidr-chairs@ietf.org,sidr@ietf.org User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Organization: Operations Network Management, Ltd. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Subject: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview ENDING: 10/21/2015) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 15:32:10 -0000 Howdy WG folks, Please consider this your warning/notice that the WGLC has been started for: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview Abstract: "This document provides an overview of a security extension to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) referred to as BGPsec. BGPsec improves security for BGP routing." Please give this a read, send comments if there are any, and let us know if this is prepared for publication request. Thanks! -chris co-chair From nobody Wed Oct 7 14:24:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 716061B3103 for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:24:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yEf5z5HVWzVk for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x229.google.com (mail-qg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 732081B30FC for ; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 14:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgt47 with SMTP id 47so26487635qgt.2 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 14:24:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=MaB0XXdvU+WuX6iX4LKgXA7ox/SrFT7eN7zK6Eu78Ts=; b=XJLp9QItjOPgkmg/6KS24q8+oeWRY3GajfI3w4RIg0mJZ6qEJLckRjB9UMOtwq7nVf fy29Z6GvxTE/h2hgIXqVgwJpY8hWXXR9CdlUOy+pHZeCPu6CDKf31mH1bsoc838507vK mpXKxfYQzT1XTlel3sy9S8d2JV72ToB1bAc08= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=MaB0XXdvU+WuX6iX4LKgXA7ox/SrFT7eN7zK6Eu78Ts=; b=REj1Hu1RIffsSFYeGpssdeaIBRtdmyzg2cwPeZpTLVkGlbyNkY3pPbFumI73Pa16m1 1iQYOxJ3QDQ6ii7xFYG+Q4iu4FSYC3PhTl6y5gKEGTGBSiIRPdJTZgrEeaEeqtSHjW9p wcu4blZO77/LhS+vqVtdR/DnVHGy9g0mT0pEWI08r4U3FMzp3beyu/RDbOXs5aksdVGz T8nDXimT9JkZ4izyfco66gA8DgHo7XbCO38dUBbQZsbd2geLnq9OwuM0RAEhZ3AHRjyJ MM8Uc7ug857uf7asanU1k/c0Xx5jfbIVibmRAVgCYMj/iLTFIMZX/mB8fJ3Cv5k9V2IT aUjw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnJnfQkr6D+wm4NPg3hJMJgQwaouscXOv92ucfVvBMWoF/UV/AuqtsZabMcXB2TUIh4S1tH X-Received: by 10.140.196.77 with SMTP id r74mr4432363qha.23.1444253044610; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 14:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [5.5.33.73] (vpn.snozzages.com. [204.42.252.17]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b127sm16971677qhc.46.2015.10.07.14.24.03 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Oct 2015 14:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sean Turner In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:24:01 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: sidr wg list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: sidr-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview ENDING: 10/21/2015) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 21:24:07 -0000 We=92ll need to figure out what to do about the I-D.sidr-as-migration = reference it=92s in the =93IESG Dead=94 state. I guess s3.2 is going to match whatever updates are made to = bgpsec-protocol-14. spt On Oct 07, 2015, at 11:32, Chris Morrow wrote: >=20 > Howdy WG folks, > Please consider this your warning/notice that the WGLC has been = started for: >=20 > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview >=20 > Abstract: > "This document provides an overview of a security extension to the > Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) referred to as BGPsec. BGPsec = improves > security for BGP routing." >=20 > Please give this a read, send comments if there are any, and let us > know if this is prepared for publication request. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > -chris > co-chair >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From nobody Thu Oct 8 02:14:26 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FAB41A8F35; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 02:14:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ncgVaHz1KgeM; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 02:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF9D51A8F34; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 02:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3499428B0041; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 05:14:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A67371F8035; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 05:14:22 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_04B9FF65-C0E9-41CF-BFF9-071D008E040A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1 From: Sandra Murphy In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 05:14:20 -0400 Message-Id: <22F64DA2-03A5-4B52-A897-B591A4EC01FB@tislabs.com> References:

To: Sean Turner X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: sidr wg list , sidr-chairs@ietf.org, Sandra Murphy Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview ENDING: 10/21/2015) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 09:14:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_04B9FF65-C0E9-41CF-BFF9-071D008E040A Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > We=92ll need to figure out what to do about the I-D.sidr-as-migration = reference it=92s in the =93IESG Dead=94 state. Thanks for the heads up, we=92ll investigate with the AD. =97Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair >=20 > I guess s3.2 is going to match whatever updates are made to = bgpsec-protocol-14. >=20 > spt >=20 > On Oct 07, 2015, at 11:32, Chris Morrow = wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> Howdy WG folks, >> Please consider this your warning/notice that the WGLC has been = started for: >>=20 >> draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview >>=20 >> Abstract: >> "This document provides an overview of a security extension to the >> Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) referred to as BGPsec. BGPsec = improves >> security for BGP routing." >>=20 >> Please give this a read, send comments if there are any, and let us >> know if this is prepared for publication request. >>=20 >> Thanks! >>=20 >> -chris >> co-chair >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> sidr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr --Apple-Mail=_04B9FF65-C0E9-41CF-BFF9-071D008E040A Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWFjPyAAoJEHplpQeet0IZaaIP/j66s5/z98gFWiQsWOHq4d2c ttcLmZ9sgViBOcgWWcv2w5/+OrWekX7dvu2D7jz53jxD8qIYnf8eMmv3FUwj4yY3 O/bGp1NJaZ/NxbfnyF1/q0sGhC4lP4pLvqNHYpoiP+qguJHn/037VR7sXOMKuc00 mdVclmbCQhmJsElu0NWo2fptqK1Sftl5OmIvIjnmopdZkK3ytzpvGvU3OaznHpIv lUZpNfVtlV2pfWAI+zacD0B1akctlwSMc0HOqmftpihtbvuVjCRLDd52FdTOj3KC 3OZhy/ibjKH/7OGlwyB+IBYbHCT5m/B2FEIxsUHt0SjQCxRMTf8Rj410bS7uhLL9 nDGV9gAW/yPNS8JzrG/GTtg/srEuvE3jLVrJKcOM4P1Yw8plI1hWzH02nbBz7fXB +PJJS/+lx/gjRDOkgOmfrxNDVwqD/P5jpDzq5wN24HYvJ/FWld5u2xccmrh/PwWA DHGr675mVLx0EOphasYI79nCzBxATY1MzcjnyeIQ66cV72aFFv5ipszuLZ2jl5Qn A6t9mf+O8UNJhbIFqW/foTWEUS5iMLgcFwKEswaM4s9iJDkvca/nsvBTxKGS+F+w /Z2Gq/BxpI0j2DMphkQojbyFIOjbn/Ve1GSZes/hawzUti/dR9z+y3qTlscIKcO7 eRCEY6NB6tZDRBDqGTV0 =gSAk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_04B9FF65-C0E9-41CF-BFF9-071D008E040A-- From nobody Thu Oct 8 02:45:34 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA8E1A9051 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 02:45:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yE7lRIio52hU for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 02:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71FAB1A9048 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 02:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13E628B003D; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 05:45:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5AB1F8035; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 05:45:31 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7CE8A010-FB1B-4361-8219-3800B528F426"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1 From: Sandra Murphy In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 05:45:35 -0400 Message-Id: <554A2136-4D85-4C02-B572-C5C1008DD348@tislabs.com> References:

To: Sean Turner X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: sidr wg list , Sandra Murphy Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview ENDING: 10/21/2015) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 09:45:34 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_7CE8A010-FB1B-4361-8219-3800B528F426 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Speaking as regular ol=92 member On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > We=92ll need to figure out what to do about the I-D.sidr-as-migration = reference it=92s in the =93IESG Dead=94 state. >=20 > I guess s3.2 is going to match whatever updates are made to = bgpsec-protocol-14. >=20 Looking at that section, I think it matches the planned updates to the = bgpsec protocol. Ironically, I think it matches the planned updates more directly than it = matches the current state of the bgpsec protocol, depending on how you = read the exact wording. . BGPsec_Path contains 3 signatures : o Signature from AS 1 protecting 192.0.2/24, AS 1 and AS 2 This will still be true in the updates, no problem. o Signature from AS 2 protecting Everything AS 1's signature protected, and AS 3 Right now, the bgpsec protocol=92s signature from AS 2 covers the = signature from AS 1, not =93Everything AS 1=92s signature protected=94. = Of course, by induction, that protects =93Everything AS 1=92s signature = protected=94. So not wrong, just indirectly true. The intent as I understand it of the updates to the bgpsec protocol are = to make the signature from AS 2 cover and directly protect =93Everything = AS 1=92s signature protected=94. IMHO. You are an author, so=85.. =97Sandy, speaking as regular ol=92 member --Apple-Mail=_7CE8A010-FB1B-4361-8219-3800B528F426 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWFjs/AAoJEHplpQeet0IZj8oQAIM9jYmurEunACaSlm7BOPpf Xu8M/+9st7KcGZZmeK99p9M49t2ye4dntn+2N9MdBuEr474GKHiBvtUQyjoTPOm9 SPKx2qS//9FAZJVgQc7RyRiB+VUeVN7rKhwzKbuguUv425ryAupMz0h5P0ze2os0 njRPGtH25XilSPwYcZkIdNEHCBdpQkBbnUaxyEiN9zBYBIhGcGQfUsWSxHNvWhLk zmAVNtbLs1jSfkrmE6Vd9D++Exqrk8TMUe2WhSvtWwe3hDT+LNAp1NReHiQ64f1E c+J09+EdvpSI0ysnaI+iCjQFYvrgiMQNruxphTUlq5BM+NxxuUS3fPFG1GSKQ4c0 KCnemGaOkStM3ZsLXldZbL+mNKwE6mDVuOTiUvkuPkaGwe+o86XOp/H4nKkvx8Go Mo1lke7wEaZgRPA/FnM1gM0iW9D9w9AXY8JrWTrlZ+Tk/6Ncs3B9rrSDw3IEAgrT sVQ0M/HV8+NxDlnRAepgz1CbDfJzq9mr437g03IUreKkKC7e0+R555ldz8bdtS17 PAQ4olIWkft5wkor7ghM0ynC8J6Ib/jHJ2mrlGTejyO73T5i1vwSGMNEV4DE8OCx XMdrHgYE2kmDnS0TvNPztrbyZqp9skEv/OtMHgnJ7KkE/TddlT0MWfB3ZDfYUIFi 9PvwjVNadhBfpnKpF15C =brxR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_7CE8A010-FB1B-4361-8219-3800B528F426-- From nobody Thu Oct 8 06:54:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D711B33E8; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 06:54:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4CuN_pgPf6AA; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 06:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 961911B3407; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 06:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2B728B0046; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:54:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9DD91F8035; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:54:25 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_25DEF612-5BAF-4883-95DF-74AC1188A1C8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1 From: Sandra Murphy In-Reply-To: <22F64DA2-03A5-4B52-A897-B591A4EC01FB@tislabs.com> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:54:25 -0400 Message-Id: References:

<22F64DA2-03A5-4B52-A897-B591A4EC01FB@tislabs.com> To: Sean Turner X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: sidr wg list , sidr-chairs@ietf.org, Sandra Murphy Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview ENDING: 10/21/2015) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:54:28 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_25DEF612-5BAF-4883-95DF-74AC1188A1C8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Oct 8, 2015, at 5:14 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 > On Oct 7, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Sean Turner wrote: >=20 >> We=92ll need to figure out what to do about the I-D.sidr-as-migration = reference it=92s in the =93IESG Dead=94 state. >=20 > Thanks for the heads up, we=92ll investigate with the AD. The answer from the AD is: The system changed it to Dead from "AD is Watching" when the draft = expired. In any case, all "Dead" means is that the IESG is not tracking the = document, not that we're in fact killing it. =97Sandy --Apple-Mail=_25DEF612-5BAF-4883-95DF-74AC1188A1C8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWFnWSAAoJEHplpQeet0IZHwMP/A/LvPNZOl3Uiw/zsdGTtEYX KgNkgNLbDM0xURFgsMbWy4JbokMHx2vB6ZuiJ3gaMczZO+a922DtzneS3ekkRB7H AqeV8wY8NmLfSor9U0zm8YFX0EQ+PbNBBpaFiwg5DdUD0xptUnYE2SxWqc1DLI+l WiThrqs6Zy3glx2vnptsLW64GbF6L1Lnu3Z6C37/oCCzHClpnO5jckWHHKUvg6Dd IQ2GjHkawcMdjsA3ipWPGGNKF3zfcFBAYGjQK+lp74mcqotzgkobqWlrpWRxGZew tuDoA84Gz5nCBzArexE11vhoM9dKCQvmqUcGmFUoHh7xgC6GDrY33LZLKcoaF73v iunqPd8ApqkcPrRp9MC/Iwxm4igDwi12Fd/Iu5CMPTfgGW/TLoa9hyQYG/inMLdM BqoUGrDvGnWPEeGTxdEHeBAoXzWHVRpbsuPKhu5iqb0wTZdOYZYeK3uJSlJJo+fI k52hucUSCbvRYWK6Mlp+Mtbe4zriwdCnuizISQNsJh0Q6QCsfooiUeQfwwFtOs9K RqcqojJaBRrFBdjCFMuK6/qgyluINxRydxnG4PURvVk8+r/tVp+344AbBzy3yS07 zu7MZt6MOGjrD4kPgmPUXpyfj0elsmubr0hyrZM73rstBCuvPKFaCVNifYmnDk4s L3ohtkxd1GqtRzKclR7k =4dL9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_25DEF612-5BAF-4883-95DF-74AC1188A1C8-- From nobody Thu Oct 8 11:56:46 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3429F1A9235 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:56:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yFXwCB-ea6ww for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:56:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB3791A916E for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 11:56:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B84F28B0041 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA5A11F8035; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:56:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Sandra Murphy X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5F0B96F1-2C53-41FC-B440-604F4562B07E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:56:33 -0400 Message-Id: To: sidr wg list Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: Sandra Murphy Subject: [sidr] comments on draft-ymbk-sidr-transfer-01??? X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 18:56:45 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5F0B96F1-2C53-41FC-B440-604F4562B07E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 The draft draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered speaks forcefully = of the potential for damage if a certificate over claims, i.e., claims = more resources than its parent. The draft discusses how that could = result from a failure of timing in a transfer of resources. In a presentation in the November 2014 IETF session on this topic, it = was suggested that discussion of "a standard procedure for certificate = management during resource transfer=94 and "current CA operational = procedures for managing transfers=94 would help in the reconsideration = of the validation algorithm. A draft was submitted and discussed at the last meeting. = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-sidr-transfer But no comments = have been received. This is an important topic, folks, and deserves our attention. Please do read the draft and comment. =97Sandy --Apple-Mail=_5F0B96F1-2C53-41FC-B440-604F4562B07E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWFrxqAAoJEHplpQeet0IZez8QAIObXXHYqYhK4qXnwNsE7rKN ZtHwIljbuv4Dim8bMuFiM/QqSoSHdGxoZpIaX9or8I++qNlzoh09OY0EgHf5KNC2 kxnxtqgHqerihKcPOLQZ4w3SmWcskT/y1IE0eNHGL70pyOu1kg8WfvGXCzc9QgJ0 S/9ewfhTtU+GeohhPtuSFtPlU8al3GLSt42A3FnGTo2uPSBOgrF6nACnlu0BaA5s Z3PFffFcnKuEap7dwzTVbtKAKDBwhL5S7sU9Ky9TX1jPrTiAveQvc2WJYBYFtLEp o1vgkxuFJTSwI82xk5pMwp54cl37FGb4nFHBc0O4ZICJV4N2yipCnlHW3QtlEmut Tmlcasqd3x/SVLPsidP82k95x4zOGDJo0aKOcDyn0E/qSZ6xuUi4irJ7tzQ0+Fnx 8tnr5r9VidH/H5l1cB7sCmtOIBZuZEa1DnRAa19pE4Kd/z6pxSFdGWUI2r09yTvT JNwUt7G8xzblClePSSGxIkATZVsc7/IMJEns2YoI1eqp2QYfxgxQPdjog8HeroIv jnMmo3oPPVtTdybmAyIvDjCF2bNbejK+5n6KAZRKlOJjsLZM7HgcXdOMWh590Otu ivMK7o8l5BpKx04SnauM8U5zQHmZbhwzmmsEC70oIK7W8AEtqwXs+BS1Uge2fbog mSgZuh3PS1hRrxoQ+4ah =GwKJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_5F0B96F1-2C53-41FC-B440-604F4562B07E-- From nobody Thu Oct 8 13:18:45 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BF01ACD2B for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:18:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.71 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_41=0.6, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LCbkQyoI7JIf for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from adrilankha.hactrn.net (adrilankha.hactrn.net [147.28.0.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A22BD1ACD2A for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (c-24-34-34-101.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.34.34.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "nargothrond.hactrn.net", Issuer "Grunchweather Associates" (verified OK)) by adrilankha.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B3553982A for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 20:18:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from minas-ithil.hactrn.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minas-ithil.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A032B1C68DAD for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:17:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:17:51 -0400 From: Rob Austein To: sidr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <555F436F.3080003@bbn.com> <2BF75857-6A5F-4260-B13B-0B9F6CE3FD98@ieca.com> <197E8AEA-D554-4DB4-885E-CFD55EF9E774@ripe.net> <55C4D7C8.4000401@bbn.com> <97B4FBD1-BCE6-4D37-BC0C-07A211347FBF@ieca.com> <55CA4901.4010007@bbn.com> <99B857CD-DF02-4751-880A-E6D1283CF3BE@tislabs.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <20151008201751.A032B1C68DAD@minas-ithil.hactrn.net> Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] preventing SKI collisions X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:18:44 -0000 At Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:22:40 -0400, Sean Turner wrote: >=20 > On Oct 06, 2015, at 08:30, Sandra Murphy wrote: >> On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:36 PM, David Mandelberg wrot= e: >>> >>> 4. Add text warning relying parties to detect malicious CAs that >>> cause too many KI collisions, and blacklist those CAs. Similarly, >>> warn routers and/or rpki-rtr caches to detect AS numbers with too >>> many public keys sharing the same SKI, and blacklist those AS >>> numbers. >>=20 >> I?m ok with ?warn?, but ?blacklist? is a bit strong for me. If you >> mean stop using that CA, i.e. remove all objects produced by that >> CA, then the whole tree under that CA would fall off the planet. I >> think that?s a potentially large cone of consequence and I believe >> it should be undertaken by brains, not code. >>=20 >> I?d prefer a warning in the security considerations section and a >> recommendation to alert the operator. >=20 > Yep let?s just put a warning in the security considerations and > alert the operator. Agreed. "Blacklist" sounds too much like mandatory policy. My RP, who are you to decide how much of its CPU time I should waste? From nobody Thu Oct 8 13:57:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E46B1ACE12 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:57:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.312 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H5O32zGnaYaD for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 317661ACD81 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 13:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ssh.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:60849 helo=COMSEC.fios-router.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkIG4-0002KE-FH for sidr@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:57:48 -0400 To: sidr@ietf.org References: From: Stephen Kent Message-ID: <5616D8CC.60709@bbn.com> Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 16:57:48 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] comments on draft-ymbk-sidr-transfer-01??? X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:57:51 -0000 Sandy, I provided detailed comments on this document on June 2. Randy later said he didn't see them, so I resent (just to Randy) on July 7. Steve From nobody Thu Oct 8 14:45:05 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C3E1ACF55 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:45:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.75 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wid1B3XGUuV7 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qg0-x230.google.com (mail-qg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B4C81ACF1D for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qgez77 with SMTP id z77so54373381qge.1 for ; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 14:45:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=9zt6p4uLaszGQdAG5TXVzT2mhqE2w6BZ914+98Zq5A4=; b=tAXMehO5vSEO5pDM9o+h101T1S5Ly3r+GZV5uPNPdqkzYETJ88jKohjkYaj9+/QCd1 L2fGbDt2G+Gv35Zu7h3JKmme3BywQfJO1B8yhjCUDf+VRU6wZxDvmKCThoQBu5h1gc+2 +a+RQpbd8q2Wbfzd+9c2nfqijMLZf5oArkdWwcnPyIMeFRKJSrjtiUQptsuagA3hcCuy aJXjx+bY+9tcYwWInyg2dfyGrxixD6FZp+9uBAGSSx5d5CIAH8kqLbJbpDzOeyfFj0Rh 1uGsV41zRZuNgyfsOqjctJ++eVuByXORVpRI0JRt/b1VfRN2j5GGa75PGkhDPbVZ1y1i jq4g== X-Received: by 10.140.93.68 with SMTP id c62mr11400186qge.54.1444340701654; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 14:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.137.34] ([216.46.0.94]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y12sm19567032qgd.20.2015.10.08.14.45.00 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Oct 2015 14:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3094\)) From: Geoff Huston In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:45:00 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: sidr wg list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3094) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] comments on draft-ymbk-sidr-transfer-01??? X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 21:45:03 -0000 > On 8 Oct 2015, at 2:56 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 > The draft draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered speaks = forcefully of the potential for damage if a certificate over claims, = i.e., claims more resources than its parent. The draft discusses how = that could result from a failure of timing in a transfer of resources. ** or form any other form of a drop in precise synchronisation between = the CA=92s number resource database and the state of a CA=92s issued = certificates. While I=92m sure perfection is an admirable objective, snafus do occur, = and another part of the motivation of the reconsidered document was to = reduce degree of catastrophic result from certain forms of certificate = issuance failure from one where all subordinate certificates cannot be = validated to one that impacts only of the validation status relative to = the resource that was placed in this inconsistent state. i.e. validation reconsidered is not 1:1 isomorphic to just transfers, as = you may have been led to believe from the next sentence... >=20 > In a presentation in the November 2014 IETF session on this topic, it = was suggested that discussion of "a standard procedure for certificate = management during resource transfer=94 and "current CA operational = procedures for managing transfers=94 would help in the reconsideration = of the validation algorithm. >=20 regards, Geoff From nobody Thu Oct 8 14:53:09 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795651B2D19; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:53:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fcZjAF79AIjo; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:53:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464341B2AB6; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:53:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151008215304.32333.52972.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 14:53:04 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-05.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 21:53:07 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchor Locator Authors : Geoff Huston Samuel Weiler George Michaelson Stephen Kent Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-05.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2015-10-08 Abstract: This document defines a Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). This document obsoletes RFC6490 by adding support for multiple URIs in a TAL. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Thu Oct 8 14:56:31 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A901B2D43 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:56:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fc7W_76sWyZy for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ia-mailgw.apnic.net (ia-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:a:851::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06A861B2D41 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:56:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:return-path; bh=6yjRnI8tH+4C5cpNw7S5MC+6o5V+psl/PdtYESK5wOY=; b=mVVs7JQKEdst3Jtyiz5YjfToF5BrXWMLkXK0KBWh3VGiThDMzsjcBoXvm5shIqykp0AljJ2uKAAWJ EK8egxiOVCiDWL2G50KHULpo5zWr5YdbRHfml2MVBiL4x79zs5abSASe1AADvrpD2fzXy1FAC85nOO Om9ovDeHdgTGQ/3Y= Received: from iamda3.org.apnic.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:dd8:9:2::101:249]) by ia-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPS; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 07:56:37 +1000 (AEST) Received: from [172.16.137.34] (203.119.101.249) by iamda3.org.apnic.net (203.119.111.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 07:56:22 +1000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3094\)) From: Geoff Huston In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:56:13 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <7A8285B5-6C9E-4E8D-8486-CA719414AA68@apnic.net> References: To: Sandra Murphy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3094) Archived-At: Cc: sidr wg list Subject: Re: [sidr] draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-04 - " Revised I-D Needed " X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2015 21:56:29 -0000 > On 5 Oct 2015, at 2:03 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 > The draft draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-04 was approved by the IESG, = provided the comments received during IETF Last Call were addressed. >=20 > The IETF Last Call comments were noted to the sidr list in = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg07208.html. >=20 > As wg co-chair, I am satisfied that wg has consensus is to adopt = =93Option #2=94 [ (allow but do not mandate line breaks)] as mentioned = in the message that brought up the problem = [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg07164.html]. >=20 > The draft authors are requested to submit a revised version of the = draft including this response. That would get the draft to = publication. >=20 > In the initial message, the following text was suggested. The draft = authors may use this as they wish. >=20 > 2. Permit but don't require newlines. For example, change Section 2.1 > item #3 from: >=20 > 3) a subjectPublicKeyInfo [RFC5280] in DER format [X.509], > encoded in Base64 (see Section 4 of [RFC4648]. >=20 > to: >=20 > 3) a subjectPublicKeyInfo [RFC5280] in DER format [X.509], > encoded in Base64 (see Section 4 of [RFC4648]). To avoid > long lines, or line breaks MAY be inserted into > the Base64 encoded string. >=20 > =97Sandy, speaking as co-chair Sorry for the delay - it slipped off the desk and the dog ate it. Here=92s the revised id with that vitally critical sentence added. A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-05.txt has been successfully submitted by Geoff Huston and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis Revision: 05 Title: Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchor = Locator Document date: 2015-10-08 Group: sidr Pages: 9 URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-05.txt Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis/ Htmlized: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-05 Diff: = https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-05 Abstract: This document defines a Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). This document obsoletes RFC6490 by adding support for multiple URIs in a TAL. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat= From nobody Fri Oct 9 06:09:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71AC31B3CC2; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:08:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vfohpNNcSy8g; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8CF81B3CCA; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 06:08:51 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151009130851.19539.62756.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 06:08:51 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: sidr mailing list , sidr chair , RFC Editor Subject: [sidr] Protocol Action: 'Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchor Locator' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-05.txt) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:08:58 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchor Locator' (draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-05.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas and Deborah Brungard. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis/ Technical Summary This document defines a Trust Anchor Locator (TAL) for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). This document obsoletes RFC6490 by adding support for multiple URIs in a TAL. Working Group Summary The multi-URI format was suggested in the draft draft-ietf-sidr-multiple-publication-points. The draft was presented at four IETFs (IETF84-IETF87) and there were comments on the mailing list. The working group felt that the feature of providing multiple publication points was a benefit for trust anchors, but that the appropriate way to represent that would be to modify RFC6490. Document Quality An IETF presentation of the draft-ietf-sidr-multiple-publication-points-01 (from which this extended format was taken) noted that it had been tested against all three known implementations. Two implementers recently confirmed that this is the case. Personnel Document Shepherd: Sandra Murphy (sandy@tislabs.com) Responsible Area Director: Alvaro Retana (aretana@cisco.com) From nobody Fri Oct 9 10:06:52 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0AC61B48B4; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:06:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l2JHP2Ez6jIt; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:06:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87EF21B48B1; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:06:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151009170650.4800.42354.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:06:50 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 17:06:51 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : RPKI Validation Reconsidered Authors : Geoff Huston George Michaelson Carlos M. Martinez Tim Bruijnzeels Andrew Lee Newton Alain Aina Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2015-10-09 Abstract: This document reviews the certificate validation procedure specified in RFC6487 and highlights aspects of operational fragility in the management of certificates in the RPKI. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Oct 9 10:11:18 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0E91B48C1 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:11:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cbJiUQo-7ZWW for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ao-mailgw.apnic.net (ao-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:8:701::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73C0D1B48AA for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:11:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:return-path; bh=zozZks8u3oYzBVeVneIORT0Scptp6wsIvo/RLyXVi+k=; b=rqg4hwLaFvw6cZ+mHw06skqjPb3PUGfAuh9MfSzTi/1G37aQDu7n1RP6Yr/ghjEZCZ8DmBYrWxdFm 8Moi5QcFoYVbCJo+Svn/H4eNPo7EvUFq+MvxS5SXQ2hOIG1SqYx3stSuXNRTrQBElB8jlBlgtddtbZ Rt69z1EOmqa4L5Kk= Received: from iamda3.org.apnic.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:dd8:9:2::101:249]) by ao-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPS for ; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 03:11:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: from [172.16.137.34] (203.119.101.249) by iamda3.org.apnic.net (203.119.111.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 03:11:23 +1000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3094\)) From: Geoff Huston In-Reply-To: <20151009170650.4800.42354.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 13:11:04 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <20151009170650.4800.42354.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: sidr wg list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3094) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 17:11:18 -0000 A date refresher, but with a minor excision in the intro sections to = remove the false impression that the only problem here is one related to=20 address transfers between RIRs. There is a more general issue of=20 the robustness of certificate issuance and revocation tracking a space that includes the dynamic state change of resources that this draft addresses. Geoff > On 9 Oct 2015, at 1:06 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. > This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working = Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : RPKI Validation Reconsidered > Authors : Geoff Huston > George Michaelson > Carlos M. Martinez > Tim Bruijnzeels > Andrew Lee Newton > Alain Aina > Filename : = draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2015-10-09 >=20 > Abstract: > This document reviews the certificate validation procedure specified > in RFC6487 and highlights aspects of operational fragility in the > management of certificates in the RPKI. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconside= red/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-0= 2 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > = https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-recons= idered-02 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From nobody Fri Oct 9 10:20:31 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A0C1B48DF; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:20:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0ifApni2aeJn; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:20:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B687B1B48E5; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:20:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.4.2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20151009172024.13405.95194.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:20:24 -0700 Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-08.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 17:20:30 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF. Title : Securing RPSL Objects with RPKI Signatures Authors : Robert Kisteleki Brian Haberman Filename : draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-08.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2015-10-09 Abstract: This document describes a method to allow parties to electronically sign RPSL-like objects and validate such electronic signatures. This allows relying parties to detect accidental or malicious modifications on such objects. It also allows parties who run Internet Routing Registries or similar databases, but do not yet have RPSS-like authentication of the maintainers of certain objects, to verify that the additions or modifications of such database objects are done by the legitimate holder(s) of the Internet resources mentioned in those objects. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-08 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Oct 9 10:24:08 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89FC51B48F9 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:24:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MlToldhbknUc for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nx-mailgw.apnic.net (nx-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:9:801::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EB131B48F0 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:24:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:return-path; bh=HvDIYdzBKkV4hCogEFtFWHoQVYHpnkQN4S9NIp7E6G4=; b=WGhkY+D8YF1kVBjgATxu4n6EPi7cGufT79LK9u6qpwE7PQbJMHzvRKfCYWvxH0KqgMdp3XwOBsf4Y TTJRgFAnVjZCHnKyyb2UIclqqimr7GlOunCgNEGp9F8RKFMoiBIIz/KcHLxKUd9DmluRH6obX7YUWe CHEopVU3MQVi3cWg= Received: from NXMDA2.org.apnic.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:dd8:9:2::101:249]) by nx-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPS; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 03:24:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: from [172.16.137.34] (203.119.101.249) by NXMDA2.org.apnic.net (203.119.107.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 03:26:32 +1000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3094\)) From: Geoff Huston In-Reply-To: <20151009170650.4800.42354.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 13:23:52 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <4FC98452-5859-4A7B-ABA2-9281CB27FC15@apnic.net> References: <20151009170650.4800.42354.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: sidr wg list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3094) Archived-At: Cc: Christopher Morrow , George Michaelson , Sandra Murphy Subject: [sidr] posted: draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 17:24:06 -0000 Hi, We were about to ask the WG chairs for a WG Last Call on this document, = but then noticed that this is an informational document and its = attempting to update a standards track RFC We suspect that the best case is to instead look at a precise standards = track document that describes the update to the validation procedure = described RFC6487 and would be a clear candidate for Standards Track = itself. So draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt is that draft. WG Chairs:- We would like to request WG adoption of = draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt, on the understanding that = draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered has done its work and = should be allowed to expire gracefully in a corner at this point! regards, Geoff & George > On 9 Oct 2015, at 1:06 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. > This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working = Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : RPKI Validation Reconsidered > Authors : Geoff Huston > George Michaelson > Carlos M. Martinez > Tim Bruijnzeels > Andrew Lee Newton > Alain Aina > Filename : = draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2015-10-09 >=20 > Abstract: > This document reviews the certificate validation procedure specified > in RFC6487 and highlights aspects of operational fragility in the > management of certificates in the RPKI. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconside= red/ >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-0= 2 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > = https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-recons= idered-02 >=20 >=20 > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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 From nobody Fri Oct 9 10:25:38 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE701B48F0 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:25:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.801 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2P_lVMAattNP for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ia-mailgw.apnic.net (ia-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:a:851::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC58A1B48F3 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 10:25:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:return-path; bh=SdLCVLmwCpFLkg2K1OwYib2U4aTcWHbCry45uow9faY=; b=NTBuaaepC9xKntgggprq47kBCKUF7e7fKwGWdyq2WMOZdHnbdbu3sC7cOu4S4twPP2p0vVidLDMYw tkr++EH5QuvKPg0GyryDuZj/uCZSNtGPHMAUjpVtBr20w7SRetMlRgBv7aRQGvOZMLB/nT4HGmHbVj lM4sSYmWfU+v0I4g= Received: from NXMDA2.org.apnic.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:dd8:9:2::101:249]) by ia-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPS; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 03:25:50 +1000 (AEST) Received: from [172.16.137.34] (203.119.101.249) by NXMDA2.org.apnic.net (203.119.107.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 03:28:04 +1000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3094\)) From: Geoff Huston In-Reply-To: <4FC98452-5859-4A7B-ABA2-9281CB27FC15@apnic.net> Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 13:25:25 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <20151009170650.4800.42354.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FC98452-5859-4A7B-ABA2-9281CB27FC15@apnic.net> To: sidr wg list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3094) Archived-At: Cc: Christopher Morrow , George Michaelson , Sandra Murphy Subject: Re: [sidr] posted: draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 17:25:37 -0000 sorry - forgot to add the url for this draft - here tis: A new version of I-D, draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Geoff Huston and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-huston-sidr-validity Revision: 00 Title: Update to RPKI Validation Document date: 2015-10-09 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 6 URL: = https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt Status: = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huston-sidr-validity/ Htmlized: = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huston-sidr-validity-00 Abstract: This document updates the RPKI certificate validation procedure as specified in Section 7.2 of RFC6487. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat > On 9 Oct 2015, at 1:23 PM, Geoff Huston wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > We were about to ask the WG chairs for a WG Last Call on this = document, but then noticed that this is an informational document and = its attempting to update a standards track RFC >=20 > We suspect that the best case is to instead look at a precise = standards track document that describes the update to the validation = procedure described RFC6487 and would be a clear candidate for Standards = Track itself. >=20 > So draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt is that draft. >=20 > WG Chairs:- We would like to request WG adoption of = draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt, on the understanding that = draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered has done its work and = should be allowed to expire gracefully in a corner at this point! >=20 >=20 > regards, >=20 > Geoff & George >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >> On 9 Oct 2015, at 1:06 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working = Group of the IETF. >>=20 >> Title : RPKI Validation Reconsidered >> Authors : Geoff Huston >> George Michaelson >> Carlos M. Martinez >> Tim Bruijnzeels >> Andrew Lee Newton >> Alain Aina >> Filename : = draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02.txt >> Pages : 12 >> Date : 2015-10-09 >>=20 >> Abstract: >> This document reviews the certificate validation procedure specified >> in RFC6487 and highlights aspects of operational fragility in the >> management of certificates in the RPKI. >>=20 >>=20 >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconside= red/ >>=20 >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-0= 2 >>=20 >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> = https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-recons= idered-02 >>=20 >>=20 >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >>=20 >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> sidr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From nobody Fri Oct 9 12:37:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785EB1A1A6E; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:36:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.064 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.064 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FwlWX8IiSjlb; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (unknown [165.237.59.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E686F1A1A6D; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 12:36:57 -0700 (PDT) X-SENDER-IP: 10.64.163.144 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,659,1437451200"; d="scan'208";a="806274551" Received: from unknown (HELO exchpapp03.corp.twcable.com) ([10.64.163.144]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 09 Oct 2015 15:32:22 -0400 Received: from EXCHPAPP06.corp.twcable.com (10.64.163.147) by exchpapp03.corp.twcable.com (10.64.163.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:36:55 -0400 Received: from EXCHPAPP06.corp.twcable.com ([10.64.163.147]) by exchpapp06.corp.twcable.com ([10.64.163.147]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 15:36:55 -0400 From: "George, Wes" To: Sandra Murphy , Sean Turner Thread-Topic: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview ENDING: 10/21/2015) Thread-Index: AQHRAsnanioyZ3ot0U2ywhvnC3DZ+g== Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 19:36:54 +0000 Message-ID: References:

<22F64DA2-03A5-4B52-A897-B591A4EC01FB@tislabs.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.5.150821 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.64.163.239] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-11.0.0.1191-8.000.1202-21868.004 x-tm-as-result: No--44.228100-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "sidr-chairs@ietf.org" , sidr wg list Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview ENDING: 10/21/2015) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 19:36:59 -0000 IE9uIDEwLzgvMTUsIDk6NTQgQU0sICJzaWRyIG9uIGJlaGFsZiBvZiBTYW5kcmEgTXVycGh5Ig0K PHNpZHItYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBvbiBiZWhhbGYgb2Ygc2FuZHlAdGlzbGFicy5jb20+IHdy b3RlOg0KDQoNCg0KPiAgIFRoZSBzeXN0ZW0gY2hhbmdlZCBpdCB0byBEZWFkIGZyb20gIkFEIGlz IFdhdGNoaW5nIiB3aGVuIHRoZSBkcmFmdA0KPmV4cGlyZWQuDQo+DQo+ICAgSW4gYW55IGNhc2Us IGFsbCAiRGVhZCIgbWVhbnMgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgSUVTRyBpcyBub3QgdHJhY2tpbmcgdGhlDQo+ ZG9jdW1lbnQsIG5vdCB0aGF0IHdlJ3JlIGluIGZhY3Qga2lsbGluZyBpdC4NCg0KT29wcy4gTm93 IHRoYXQgSSd2ZSAoZmluYWxseSkgZ290dGVuIHRocm91Z2ggdGhlIG11bHRpcGxlIHNpZ25pZmlj YW50DQpyZXZpc2lvbnMgbmVjZXNzYXJ5IG9uIHRoZSBwYXJlbnQgZG9jIGluIElEUiwgYW5kIGl0 IHNpdHMgaW4gdGhlIFJGQw0KZWRpdG9yJ3MgcXVldWUsIEkgaGF2ZSBzb21lIGN5Y2xlcyB0byBm aW5pc2ggdGhpcyBvbmUgdXAuIEknbGwgd29yayB0byBnZXQNCmFuIHVwZGF0ZSBiZWZvcmUgdGhl IHBvc3RpbmcgY3V0b2ZmIGZvciBZb2tvaGFtYSwgdGhvdWdoIEknbSBub3Qgc3VyZSB3ZQ0KbmVl ZCB0byBkaXNjdXNzIGl0IGR1cmluZyB0aGUgbWVldGluZyB0byBnZXQgaXQgbW92aW5nIGZvcndh cmQgYWdhaW4uDQpJJ2xsIGFsc28gdHJ5IHRvIGNhcnZlIHNvbWUgdGltZSBuZXh0IGJlZm9yZSB0 aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50J3MgV0dMQyBlbmRzIHRvDQpyZXZpZXcgaXQgd2l0aCB0aGUgYXMtbWlncmF0 aW9uIGRyYWZ0IGluIG1pbmQuDQoNClRoYW5rcywNCg0KV2VzDQoNCg0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KDQpUaGlzIEUtbWFpbCBhbmQgYW55IG9mIGl0cyBhdHRhY2ht ZW50cyBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBUaW1lIFdhcm5lciBDYWJsZSBwcm9wcmlldGFyeSBpbmZvcm1hdGlv biwgd2hpY2ggaXMgcHJpdmlsZWdlZCwgY29uZmlkZW50aWFsLCBvciBzdWJqZWN0IHRvIGNvcHly aWdodCBiZWxvbmdpbmcgdG8gVGltZSBXYXJuZXIgQ2FibGUuIFRoaXMgRS1tYWlsIGlzIGludGVu ZGVkIHNvbGVseSBmb3IgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBvciBlbnRpdHkgdG8gd2hp Y2ggaXQgaXMgYWRkcmVzc2VkLiBJZiB5b3UgYXJlIG5vdCB0aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQgcmVjaXBpZW50 IG9mIHRoaXMgRS1tYWlsLCB5b3UgYXJlIGhlcmVieSBub3RpZmllZCB0aGF0IGFueSBkaXNzZW1p bmF0aW9uLCBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24sIGNvcHlpbmcsIG9yIGFjdGlvbiB0YWtlbiBpbiByZWxhdGlv biB0byB0aGUgY29udGVudHMgb2YgYW5kIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIHRvIHRoaXMgRS1tYWlsIGlzIHN0 cmljdGx5IHByb2hpYml0ZWQgYW5kIG1heSBiZSB1bmxhd2Z1bC4gSWYgeW91IGhhdmUgcmVjZWl2 ZWQgdGhpcyBFLW1haWwgaW4gZXJyb3IsIHBsZWFzZSBub3RpZnkgdGhlIHNlbmRlciBpbW1lZGlh dGVseSBhbmQgcGVybWFuZW50bHkgZGVsZXRlIHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hbCBhbmQgYW55IGNvcHkgb2Yg dGhpcyBFLW1haWwgYW5kIGFueSBwcmludG91dC4NCg== From nobody Tue Oct 13 06:27:43 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2126C1B3149 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:27:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8iboEF4rIBLT for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DEF31B2A1C for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so58217791wic.0 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:27:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=9XLKPOmYeceLGJyymU6Q10RF8h+KyEhUHvCIrARI09g=; b=tUDFxT8A4mlfFn3LNy2cGarQMQvRCFNp8vwQI+uUjWlwtpXZNEVBNcGxkH9sMMrQc/ 7AzAIkxN/cWJZLaFXq0grw9LpPG6Ln63TRSX0EuyvckgWWBUEQd+xP28+1whyC3lvBuU 4m7BIoExXK5x8gKONNlXQlDvR9ZPinkwAEmes/inney+vpq803+EQDvuy3pjFhH/dglv T+bznlk8xuBysNI5+INBeGVjNkP3AbE1oY6YPuDSfpX6uzoWbNnoYVpDCieEqWn4oV1y 4QvgyuPdmfBnPjrbP9cpgjjh4IyYKPfS8aJKXNOZXYQyT39zOphI3oWhqmXtvsnzA+pB H8aQ== X-Received: by 10.194.205.229 with SMTP id lj5mr16677450wjc.57.1444742857912; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:27:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20151009170650.4800.42354.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FC98452-5859-4A7B-ABA2-9281CB27FC15@apnic.net> In-Reply-To: From: Arturo Servin Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:27:27 +0000 Message-ID: To: Geoff Huston , sidr wg list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba984b8d6789f0521fc68e5 Archived-At: Cc: Christopher Morrow , George Michaelson , Sandra Murphy Subject: Re: [sidr] posted: draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:27:42 -0000 --047d7ba984b8d6789f0521fc68e5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Something that I liked from draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered is that it explained very well why we need to change the validation process. Although it is not mandatory and I do not have a strong position about it, I think it would be good to add some context to this document of why the change. /as On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 at 18:25 Geoff Huston wrote: > sorry - forgot to add the url for this draft - here tis: > > > A new version of I-D, draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt > has been successfully submitted by Geoff Huston and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-huston-sidr-validity > Revision: 00 > Title: Update to RPKI Validation > Document date: 2015-10-09 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 6 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt > Status: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huston-sidr-validity/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huston-sidr-validity-00 > > > Abstract: > This document updates the RPKI certificate validation procedure as > specified in Section 7.2 of RFC6487. > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > > On 9 Oct 2015, at 1:23 PM, Geoff Huston wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > We were about to ask the WG chairs for a WG Last Call on this document, > but then noticed that this is an informational document and its attempting > to update a standards track RFC > > > > We suspect that the best case is to instead look at a precise standards > track document that describes the update to the validation procedure > described RFC6487 and would be a clear candidate for Standards Track itself. > > > > So draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt is that draft. > > > > WG Chairs:- We would like to request WG adoption of > draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt, on the understanding that > draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered has done its work and should > be allowed to expire gracefully in a corner at this point! > > > > > > regards, > > > > Geoff & George > > > > > > > > > >> On 9 Oct 2015, at 1:06 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > >> > >> > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > >> This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working > Group of the IETF. > >> > >> Title : RPKI Validation Reconsidered > >> Authors : Geoff Huston > >> George Michaelson > >> Carlos M. Martinez > >> Tim Bruijnzeels > >> Andrew Lee Newton > >> Alain Aina > >> Filename : > draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02.txt > >> Pages : 12 > >> Date : 2015-10-09 > >> > >> Abstract: > >> This document reviews the certificate validation procedure specified > >> in RFC6487 and highlights aspects of operational fragility in the > >> management of certificates in the RPKI. > >> > >> > >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered/ > >> > >> There's also a htmlized version available at: > >> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02 > >> > >> A diff from the previous version is available at: > >> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02 > >> > >> > >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >> > >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > --047d7ba984b8d6789f0521fc68e5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Something that I liked from=C2=A0dra= ft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered is that it explained very well wh= y we need to change the validation process. Although it is not mandatory an= d I do not have a strong position about it, I think it would be good to add= some context to this document of why the change.

= /as

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 at 18:25 Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:

= sorry - forgot to add the url for this draft - here tis:

A new version of I-D, draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Geoff Huston and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft-huston-sidr-validity Revision:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A000
Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Update to RPKI Validation
Document date:=C2=A0 2015-10-09
Group:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Individual Submission
Pages:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 6
URL:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huston-sidr-vali= dity-00.txt
Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huston-sidr-validity/
Htmlized:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0https:/= /tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huston-sidr-validity-00

Abstract:
=C2=A0 This document updates the RPKI certificate validation procedure as =C2=A0 specified in Section 7.2 of RFC6487.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

> On 9 Oct 2015, at 1:23 PM, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We were about to ask the WG chairs for a WG Last Call on this document= , but then noticed that this is an informational document and its attemptin= g to update a standards track RFC
>
> We suspect that the best case is to instead look at a precise standard= s track document that describes the update to the validation procedure desc= ribed RFC6487 and would be a clear candidate for Standards Track itself. >
> So draft-huston-sidr-validity-00.txt is that draft.
>
> WG Chairs:- We would like to request WG adoption of draft-huston-sidr-= validity-00.txt, on the understanding that draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-= reconsidered has done its work and should be allowed to expire gracefully i= n a corner at this point!
>
>
> regards,
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Geoff & George
>
>
>
>
>> On 9 Oct 2015, at 1:06 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts= directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Worki= ng Group of the IETF.
>>
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Title=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= : RPKI Validation Reconsidered
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Authors=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0: Geo= ff Huston
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 George Michaelson
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Carlos M. Martinez
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Tim Bruijnzeels
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Andrew Lee Newton
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Alain Aina
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Filename=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : draft-ie= tf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02.txt
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Pages=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= : 12
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Date=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = : 2015-10-09
>>
>> Abstract:
>> This document reviews the certificate validation procedure specifi= ed
>> in RFC6487 and highlights aspects of operational fragility in the<= br> >> management of certificates in the RPKI.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datat= racker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered/
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> https://tools.ie= tf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://= www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-02=
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of = submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

--047d7ba984b8d6789f0521fc68e5-- From nobody Tue Oct 13 06:39:30 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A146F1B3D30 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:39:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.911 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CKZWwZ023nVj for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE2131B3D2D for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1092C28B0046 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:39:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (nova.tislabs.com [10.66.1.77]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E291F1F8035 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:39:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:39:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Samuel Weiler To: sidr@ietf.org Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview ENDING: 10/21/2015) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:39:29 -0000 The doc cites a bunch of i-d's. Under previous practice, that would have left it languishing in the RFC Editor queue waiting for the others. If that were the practice now, I would suggest we hold it and release all of the docs as a group, which would permit later changes to this doc if needed. I think current practice does allow citing i-d's (though version numbers need to be specified), but I'm wondering if we wouldn't be better off waiting. This is the first BGPsec doc many will read - I would prefer to have it be correct and complete even if we make changes in the other docs along the way. Other than that, no issues with the doc - it's in good shape. Minor nits sent separately to the editors. -- Sam Weiler From nobody Tue Oct 13 08:15:46 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16AA1B46DC for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:15:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HrQ2OC5QSd9J for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x236.google.com (mail-yk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F9A91B46DA for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ykdg206 with SMTP id g206so19641597ykd.1 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:15:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=gVqSqgnT8HRbW5hUrCIi2jahY2ieCOK70jSflQnqjWM=; b=bArac67yjHPStJVqzaMDx0u5mfOhKxJgToOsVSdDPzzjFgP2lMJJAZyd+MRy7QyGMv DDF3wVKOef/F25AdO/2FM1orThx74VDyKgbc4UIyLpFlqhle1vexU17g4umvh3AE1N/+ c3DQNqK4VXUVpRtQqrZb7d5DnzoCGXVaVksRI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=gVqSqgnT8HRbW5hUrCIi2jahY2ieCOK70jSflQnqjWM=; b=DSEjmZ+EnjxbHigq9kTkSq9env0+IesNbmKJlOApyX49xjFxQ5YY/mH5N856Dm7zKt KfFgDdSoJT27spUmMAUZgJH8Hoi+IAmOK9bi5DMOSsu/vZY4lOQ/dJLVDKNHyeS0TrG1 KqJGwynhOp+MF80GnSLVyi5i2AB3Wpo9tsY01MIoUjJ5B5XTHttCPeNYAelndK3TzTj9 +mgh8Iz8VnhLs8GXetbk/gmGEyQ4nLuVNFRLy5FWVV6yNhWTrSyHpSoBFfH2Ow+3BH1b qeELOOIxJWJn7ujUGlw24hn/3YT+tBaHDgWMeLeaoVJw/NM/uitIq7uCMEgFq3NJ0Flv NMXw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnd5UkQ13Evbowa2bgIQgT2XCM7gzPjMoA8sqQ3KZ0wBA/X4XgAPku/DBRt1/36ZGv2ycps X-Received: by 10.13.226.196 with SMTP id l187mr27431386ywe.231.1444749342659; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.0.112] (pool-173-73-126-234.washdc.east.verizon.net. [173.73.126.234]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q2sm2353925ywd.11.2015.10.13.08.15.41 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Sean Turner In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:15:40 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <80E8F2DB-7297-444E-A56D-BCED3512AB52@sn3rd.com> References: To: Sam Weiller X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-overview ENDING: 10/21/2015) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:15:45 -0000 Ah so I guess this one is informational so it could proceed without the = waiting for all the refs, but I do think we can ask the RFC editor to = hold it for at least the normative refs. When progressing a block of = drafts, there=92s always a bunch of tradeoffs to deal with: 1) Will the = IESG be upset by having to read a couple of hundred pages, 2) What=92s = the right order of the drafts to hit the IESG agenda, 3) Will we need to = change something in the overview draft, etc. I=92ve come to think that = when the WG thinks a draft is done we should push it upstream and let = them deal with it in the order that it comes. We can let the IESG place = discusses that hold the draft before it gets to the RFC editor based on = whatever criteria they feel is appropriate, or the RFC editor can hold = it because of their processes - basically we should get things off our = plate ASAP so that we can focus on other things. Obviously YMMV. spt On Oct 13, 2015, at 09:39, Samuel Weiler wrote: > The doc cites a bunch of i-d's. Under previous practice, that would = have left it languishing in the RFC Editor queue waiting for the others. = If that were the practice now, I would suggest we hold it and release = all of the docs as a group, which would permit later changes to this doc = if needed. I think current practice does allow citing i-d's (though = version numbers need to be specified), but I'm wondering if we wouldn't = be better off waiting. This is the first BGPsec doc many will read - I = would prefer to have it be correct and complete even if we make changes = in the other docs along the way. >=20 > Other than that, no issues with the doc - it's in good shape. >=20 > Minor nits sent separately to the editors. >=20 > -- Sam Weiler >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From nobody Tue Oct 13 11:06:54 2015 Return-Path: