Subject: [sidr] BOA comments

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:49:49 -0500

Folks,

At the SIDR meeting this week, I proposed that we add text to the ROA 
I-D to explicitly describe issuing a ROA with a reserved ASN, e.g., 
0. The intent of this convention is to prevent unauthenticated 
assertions about prefixes from being accepted during the very long, 
incremental deployment period.

I received a rousing, negative response to this proposal, so It will 
not be added to the ROA format I-D. (I do note that, even without 
establishing this convention, any ROA issuer is free to achieve the 
effect I described by issuing a ROA to any ASN that is not going to 
be allocated, e.g., ASN 0 or the ASN's being reserved for 
documentation use in an forthcoming RFC.)

Based on this response, I believe that the BOA I-D would have 
received an equally negative reception, if it had been briefed. I 
note that BOA processing requires additional logic to achieve what 
appears to be an largely equivalent effect, while the ROA convention 
I proposed has the desired effect without any new processing logic.

I am surprised that the BOA I-D, which is now in WGLC, has not 
generated any comments. So, I suggest, with regret, that the BOA I-D 
is not acceptable to the WG, but has simply not received negative 
comments because of the focus on other WG documents at this time. If 
folks believe otherwise, I'd like to hear why.

Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr