<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 30, 2020, at 21:51 , Daniel Yakmut <<a href="mailto:yakmutd@googlemail.com" class="">yakmutd@googlemail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class=""><p class="">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."</p><p class=""> I particularly raised a concern "<span style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family: "Open
Sans",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white" class="">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"</span></p><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote>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.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>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.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>As such, a revocation would (in the vast majority of cases) take effect within 24 hours of the block being issued.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Further, a new ROA created by the recipient of a block would override the less specific ROA issued by the RIR.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>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.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Such delay would be less than 24 hours in the vast majority of cases. I don’t see this as a problem.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class=""><span style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
"Open Sans",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white" class="">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</span></p></div></div></blockquote>Interesting… I thought I recalled the authors responding to this along the lines of what I stated above.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class=""><span style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
"Open Sans",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white" class="">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).</span></p></div></div></blockquote>I don’t think your objection requires action by the authors. The current process is adequate despite your claims to the contrary.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class=""><span style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
"Open Sans",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white" class="">Simply.</span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:10.5pt;line-height:107%;font-family:
"Open Sans",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white" class="">Dan<br class="">
</span></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br class="">
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31/01/2020 3:18 am, Owen DeLong
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3D872B8A-4DBC-421C-A0A4-FE5D125E834D@delong.com" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Jan 29, 2020, at 03:58 , Nishal Goburdhan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nishal@controlfreak.co.za"><nishal@controlfreak.co.za></a> wrote:
On 29 Jan 2020, at 12:35, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>