[rpd] End of LAST call

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 30, 2020, at 21:51 , Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com> wrote:

> 

> I don't agree with your submission that; "All of the “objections” I saw seemed to indicate a clear lack of understanding of RPKI in general and the proposal in specific."

> 

> I particularly raised a concern "The current state of RPKI infrastructure, does not provide a sufficient period between revocation of ROA and notification that a given prefix has been allocated to an organization, which can impact considerably on allocations. Except we can be able to provide a sufficient period or create a different procedure, the proposal for the RPKI-ROAs does not fly"

> 

> 

I’m not sure where to start with this… It clearly does indicate a lack of understanding of both RPKI and of the proposed policy.

RPKI in its current state can operate near real time. In general, I believe operators are updating their caches at least once every 24 hours.

As such, a revocation would (in the vast majority of cases) take effect within 24 hours of the block being issued.

Further, a new ROA created by the recipient of a block would override the less specific ROA issued by the RIR.

The worst possible outcome of any such delay is that the AS0 ROA delays the useful deployment of a newly issued block. It will not harm the continued use of an existing block.

Such delay would be less than 24 hours in the vast majority of cases. I don’t see this as a problem.


> and I did not receive any response from the author(s), I suspect this is a concern that is critical and important to possible adoption and implementation this proposal

> 

Interesting… I thought I recalled the authors responding to this along the lines of what I stated above.


> However, I will agree that the author(s) may have been overwhelm with the number of "objections" raised and could not keep track of it and response, hence I will suggest that the co-chairs could help by summarising the objections for the action of the author(s).

> 

I don’t think your objection requires action by the authors. The current process is adequate despite your claims to the contrary.

Owen


> Simply.

> 

> Dan

> 

> 

> 

> 

> On 31/01/2020 3:18 am, Owen DeLong wrote:

>> I agree with Nishal, Jordi, and Frank.

>> 

>> All of the “objections” I saw seemed to indicate a clear lack of understanding of RPKI in general and the proposal in specific.

>> 

>> All of them raised concerns that simply don’t fit the facts of what is being proposed.

>> 

>> I did not see any legitimate or critical objections. If there is something I missed, please enumerate it (them) for the edification of the list.

>> 

>> Owen

>> 

>> 

>>> On Jan 29, 2020, at 03:58 , Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za> <mailto:nishal at controlfreak.co.za> wrote:

>>> 

>>> On 29 Jan 2020, at 12:35, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE wrote:

>>> 

>>>> Dear PDWG,

>>>> The following policy proposals have been on the Last call for about 4 weeks

>>>> 1.  Multihoming not required for ASN

>>>> 2.  Adjusting IPv6 PA Policy

>>>> 3. RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space

>>>> 

>>>> However, we received some critical objections that should be addressed on

>>>> the policy named  "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address

>>>> Space" therefore we believe it requires more discussion.

>>> could you enumerate those “critical objections” please.  that would help the authors to fix this for round two.

>>> from my perspective, the last series of responses, came from a fundamental misunderstanding of what RPKI is, and how it works.

>>> 

>>> (bear in mind, that it’s not the authors’ - or this list’s - responsibility to explain RPKI ..)

>>> 

>>> -n.

>>> 

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> RPD mailing list

>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200130/fca260cb/attachment-0001.html>