Thanks Russ and Terry for the comments. I likely misread the consensus on list regarding recommendation 3. One thing I noticed when deleting it was that there are no other references to RPKI anywhere else in the document. There is no associated discussion of RPKI in the document to serve as background for the recommendation. Given that, and taking into account the discussions on the Caucus list as well as discussions in the work party. What do members think about using the following text as a new recommendation 3? "The RSSAC Caucus should investigate and assess the value of the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) as a possible framework for validating the route advertisements of RSOs." Please indicate on list if the above rewording is satisfactory or propose new text. Especially if you previously sent mail to the list on this topic. Please respond by March 2nd, and please keep in mind that this will not become a publication and as such does not represent consensus opinion of the RSSAC or RSSAC Caucus. It will merely be used a starting point if/when this topic is ever explored again. Thanks, Andrew
On Feb 23, 2018, at 01:06, Terry Manderson <terry@terrym.net> wrote:
I would be happy with either rewording the recommendation to have the caucus (via a work party) assess RPKI on various dimensions (and perhaps identifying alternatives) OR removing the recommendation.
As stated, I am simply not comfortable with the current wording.
Cheers Terry
On 23 Feb 2018, at 8:42 am, Russ Mundy <mundy@tislabs.com> wrote:
Andrew,
Thanks for updating the document to incorporate the various comments and for providing the new version.
I do believe that removing recommendation 3 on RPKI does not reflect a consensus of the discussion both recently and earlier on the mail list. As I read the various posting to the list, arguments were made both for and against make use of RPKI and a very small number of posts about whether or not the RSSAC should recommend that RSO’s should _consider_ the use of RPKI.
I would like to ask that you review both the recent and earlier posts related to the RPKI recommendation. My interpretation of the consensus of the previous and recent mail list discussion is that some people supported RSO's using RPKI, some people opposed RSO’s using RPKI, and a number of people supported that each RSO should individually consider use of RPKI as a satisfactory compromise as well as being consistent with the concept independent RSO making their own operational decisions. It was only in the recent comment period when one or two comments were made to delete the RPKI recommendation and I thought that others had responded saying leave it so I thought the recommendation was going to stay in or, at most, be reworded in some manner.
Regards, Russ
On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:08 AM, Andrew Mcconachie <andrew.mcconachie@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RSSAC Caucus,
The review period for this document ended on February 16th. I have edited the document based on the comments provided on list and a high-level changelog is below.
- Changed table 2 to remove all references to root letters - Added sentence in section 3, paragraph 4 - Added sentence to end of section 4 - Reordered text in section 6.1 - Removed recommendation 3 on RPKI - Added Paul Muchene to Ackowledgements section
Final CLEAN and REDLINE versions of the document are attached to this mail and will be archived here on this list. If the RSSAC Caucus decides to take up this subject again this document will be available.
The RSSAC Caucus Work Party on Best Practices for the Distribution of Anycast Instances of the Root Name Service will now be closed. Thanks again to all the work party members and other RSSAC Caucus members that provided feedback.
—Andrew
On Feb 2, 2018, at 19:06, kranjbar <kranjbar@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear RSSAC Caucus,
Please find attached outcome document of ‘Best Practices for the Distribution of Anycast Instances of the Root Name Service’ work party. As it was mentioned in the caucus updates, the work party did not conclude with finishing all of it’s tasks but had many deep discussions about the questions raised in the work plan. This document summarises all of those discussions and conclusions and, at any point in time, if RSSAC or RSSAC Caucus feels one of the questions should be explored in more detail, we always have the option of booting up a new work party around that single issue and achieve more fine grained results.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions or questions.
All the best, Kaveh.
<27 November anycast document.pdf>_______________________________________________ rssac-caucus mailing list rssac-caucus@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus
<21FebruaryAnycastDocument-CLEAN.pdf><21FebruaryAnycastDocument-CLEAN.docx><21FebruaryAnycastDocument-REDLINE.docx>_______________________________________________ rssac-caucus mailing list rssac-caucus@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus
_______________________________________________ rssac-caucus mailing list rssac-caucus@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-caucus