Subject: [sidr] discussion topic: validation abstract vs implementation specific (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-05)

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:26:12 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

In the last meeting, George Michaelson and John Scudder had an exchange of 
comments about the roa-validation draft (now 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-05).  John said 
that the draft lacked specifics for implementers and George said that 
this was the authors' intent, that the draft should be viewed as an 
abstract statement of what route validation with the RPKI should mean.

We have seen two different proposals for implementing route validation: 
Ruediger Volk's proposal to use ROAs with existing IRR based filter 
generation tools (and a mapping from ROAs to IRR objects), and Dave Ward's 
presentation of a BGP decision process mechanism that uses ROA 
information.

I see no reason to believe that there will never be other proposals for 
implementing route validation, or that we must decide on a single 
proposal.

Recall that Geoff commented that our charter does call for us to work on 
router implementation specifics.  (He referred to the "Document specific 
routing functionality modules" part in particular.)

I suggest to the working group that we could proceed with the current 
draft as the abstract model for route validation, and leave open the 
potential for other drafts that bring proposals for implementation 
specifics for route validation.  (And that we should begin working on such 
implementation drafts.)

--Sandy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:02:08 -0700

> specifics for route validation.  (And that we should begin working on
> such implementation drafts.)

having spent the last weeks, and specifically the last two days in the
bay area, discussing this with bgp implementors, i can not support this
position.  we will be presenting a more realistic approach in anaheim.

randy

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:06:34 -0400

At 12:26 PM -0400 3/16/10, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>In the last meeting, George Michaelson and John Scudder had an 
>exchange of comments about the roa-validation draft (now 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-roa-validation-05).  John 
>said that the draft lacked specifics for implementers and George 
>said that this was the authors' intent, that the draft should be 
>viewed as an abstract statement of what route validation with the 
>RPKI should mean.
>
>We have seen two different proposals for implementing route 
>validation: Ruediger Volk's proposal to use ROAs with existing IRR 
>based filter generation tools (and a mapping from ROAs to IRR 
>objects), and Dave Ward's presentation of a BGP decision process 
>mechanism that uses ROA information.
>
>I see no reason to believe that there will never be other proposals 
>for implementing route validation, or that we must decide on a 
>single proposal.
>
>Recall that Geoff commented that our charter does call for us to 
>work on router implementation specifics.  (He referred to the 
>"Document specific routing functionality modules" part in 
>particular.)
>
>I suggest to the working group that we could proceed with the 
>current draft as the abstract model for route validation, and leave 
>open the potential for other drafts that bring proposals for 
>implementation specifics for route validation.  (And that we should 
>begin working on such implementation drafts.)
>
>--Sandy

+1

Steve

---

From: Pradosh Mohapatra <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:05:16 -0700

Hi Sandy,

On Mar 16, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:

> I see no reason to believe that there will never be other proposals for implementing route validation, or that we must decide on a single proposal.

Do you have a deadline in mind so as to make progress? What's the motivation to _not_ decide on a single proposal? How do you see the deployments in multi-proposal model?

- Pradosh

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:25:12 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Are you requesting a separate time slot on the agenda for this 
presentation?

--Sandy