[rpd] End of LAST call

[Frank Habicht]

Hi,

On 31/01/2020 08:51, Daniel Yakmut via RPD 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.

I would like to get more specific information:

1. According to you, Daniel: how much time does the "current state of
RPKI" provide between revocation of ROA and notification that a given
prefix has been allocated to an organization?

2. How much time would you consider "sufficient"?

3. which impact on allocations to you see?


Thanks,
Frank
(co-author)


> Except we

> can be able to provide a sufficient period or create a different

> procedure, the proposal for the RPKI-ROAs does not fly"



> 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

> 

> 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).

> 

> 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> 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

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

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

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

> 

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>