Subject: [sidr] Request for Last Call on draft-ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning-05

From: Byron Ellacott <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:56:53 +1000

Sandy, with your WG chair hat on, could you please issue a WG Last  
Call on the following document:

draft-ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning-05.txt

I am a co-author of this document.

Thanks,
   Byron

_____________________________________________________________________

Byron Ellacott                         email:           [email-masked]
Technical Area Manager, APNIC          sip:        [email-masked]
http://www.apnic.net                   phone:         +61 7 3858 3100

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:30:49 +0900

> draft-ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning-05.txt

still reading, but ...

naming of actors in this document still assumes that ISPs are the
children.  children might be RIRs (parent IANA), or end sites (parent
ISPs or owning non-end user sites (e.g. business subsidiaries or govt
structures)).

again, i suggest something like 'parent' and 'child', though i am not
strongly attached to those words.

randy

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:42:04 +1000

> strongly attached to those words.

I don't see the acronym RIR anywhere in the document. There is one  
reference to regional internet registry policy documents.

It does talk about LIR, and IR, and ISP. I would have thought that  
IANA, the RIRs and LIRs are conceptually at least one of LIR and IR in  
this context.

So, are you just saying you want these specific terms replaced by more  
neutral 'parent' and 'child' (or likewise, similar, roget-thesaurus- 
time) terms?

section 1.1 terminology seems to me to be quite good actually:

1.1 Terminology

   (elided)

    Additional terms used in this document are:

    "IR"  an abbreviation of "Internet Registry", using in the context  
of
       this document as an entity undertaking the role of resource
       issuer.  An IR is a Certificate Authority, and can issue Resource
       Certificates.

    "ISP"  an abbreviation of "Internet Service Provider", using in the
       context of this document as an entity undertaking the role of
       resource recipient who is the subject of a Resource Certificate.
       An ISP may be issued with a CA-enabled certificate, allowing the
       entity to also assume the role of an IR.

    "resource class"  a resource class refers to a collection of
       resources that can be certified in a single resource certificate
       by an issuer.

    "server"  in the context of this client/server protocol
       specification, the IR assumes the role of the "server."

    "client"  in the context of this client/server protocol
       specification, the ISP assumes the role of the "client."

So, contextually, an entity is referred to as a client when it faces  
up, which is broadly speaking what most ISPs will do *in the context  
of their own routing announcements* at least.

When they operate as agents issuing certificates, they are in the role  
of an IR. -And that is what the "ISP" terminology section says: "An  
ISP may be issued with a CA-enabled certificate, allowing the entity  
to also assume the role of an IR."

I'm not an author of this draft btw.

-george

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:04:18 +0900

> reference to regional internet registry policy documents.

perhaps reading my message again, and more slowly, would be helpful.

randy

---

From: Byron Ellacott <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:44:00 +1000

Randy,

> ISPs or owning non-end user sites (e.g. business subsidiaries or govt

I believe section 1.1 entirely addresses this point.  The definition  
of IR does not preclude service providers, nor does the definition of  
ISP preclude either regional internet registries or end sites.   
Summarised, they are:

IR : an entity undertaking the role of resource issuer.
ISP : an entity undertaking the role of resource recipient who is the  
subject of a Resource Certificate.

   Byron

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:45:25 +0900

> subject of a Resource Certificate.

dear apnic mafia,

these are well-known terms.  please leave the goalposts in place.

randy

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:38:50 -0400

The quote provided does not match the wording in the draft.  Please, 
this argument is vituperative enough.  We need to quote accurately.

What the document actually says is that ISP stands for "Internet Service 
Provider"  (so far, so good.  That is what it stands for.)  It then goes 
on to say "using in the context of this document as an entity 
undertaking the role of..."

Similarly, it says that IR is an "Internet Registry".

If it is the intention to assert that Internet Registries are the 
resoruce issuers, and ISPs are the resource recipients.  Then we should 
say that explicitly.  If that is not the intention (and Randy is clearly 
asking that it not be, and someone responding seemed to be trying to say 
that it did not have to be), then we must not use the terms IR and ISP 
for those roles.  We should not use terms with clear and relevant 
existing meanings unless our intention is to deliberately conflate the 
meanings.

Yours,
Joel

>> subject of a Resource Certificate.
...

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:50:45 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Byron Ellacott wrote:

> I believe section 1.1 entirely addresses this point.  The definition of IR 
> does not preclude service providers, nor does the definition of ISP preclude 
> either regional internet registries or end sites.  Summarised, they are:
>
> ISP : an entity undertaking the role of resource recipient who is the subject 
> of a Resource Certificate.

Under this definition of ISP, would an RIR that received resources from 
IANA and received a resource certificate for those resources be an ISP?

If not, why not?

--Sandy

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:57:08 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

My apologies - in watching the discussion about this draft I missed the 
fact that I did not issue the last call.  coming right up.

--Sandy

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Byron Ellacott wrote:

> Sandy, with your WG chair hat on, could you please issue a WG Last Call on 
> the following document:
>

---

From: Byron Ellacott <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:01:01 +1000

On 30/10/2009, at 12:50 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:

>> I believe section 1.1 entirely addresses this point.  The  
>> definition of IR does not preclude service providers, nor does the  
>> definition of ISP preclude either regional internet registries or  
>> end sites.  Summarised, they are:
>>
>> ISP : an entity undertaking the role of resource recipient who is  
>> the subject of a Resource Certificate.
>
> Under this definition of ISP, would an RIR that received resources  
> from IANA and received a resource certificate for those resources be  
> an ISP?

Yes, in the context of the definition of terms for this document.

Would a global replace of "ISP" with "subject" and "IR" with "issuer"  
be a sufficient resolution of this discussion?

   Byron

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:03:19 +0900

> be a sufficient resolution of this discussion?

makes sense to me, especially in the two level case.  when you get to
three or more, you may want grandchild/grandparent etc.

the key point is that it is turtles all the way down.

randy