[rpd] End of LAST call

[Daniel Yakmut]

To response to your questions,


at least I will like to see about 24 hours, which will be minimally 
impactful, but the current infrastructure does not allow this small 
amount of time.

The impact I possibly see is the delay in allocation.


Simply,

Danile

On 31/01/2020 7:34 am, Frank Habicht wrote:

> 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

>>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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