Subject: [sidr] wglc request for draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-06.txt

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:08:02 +0900

steve kent has been beating me up that a lot of documents normatively
reference draft-ietf-sidr-iana-objects-03.txt, which in turn references
draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-06.txt.  i.e. my draft is holding dinner
up.

so please review draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-06.txt.

and could the chairs provide incentive for review by doing a wglc?

thanks

randy

---

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:35:11 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

The chairs have received a request from the authors for a WG Last Call for 
"The RPKI Ghostbusters Record", draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-06.

The document and the draft version history are available at: 
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sidr/draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters

The Last Call will end Wed, 3 Aug 2011 (AOE).  This is three weeks instead 
of the usual two, because the IETF week will occupy people's time and 
attention.

As usual, please address all comments to the WG mailing list, and please 
be clear in your comments to this last call if you are supporting the 
document's submission to the IESG or if you are opposed. If you are 
opposed, please indicate why.

--Sandy, speaking as wg chair, with wg chair snood on

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:39:49 -0400

I've read this document and support moving it forward.

Make sure to ask Stewart to send an email to the mailing list 
[email-masked] asking for comments on the Media Type section of 
your specification.

spt

On 7/13/11 7:35 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>
> The chairs have received a request from the authors for a WG Last Call
> for "The RPKI Ghostbusters Record", draft-ietf-sidr-ghostbusters-06.
>
> The Last Call will end Wed, 3 Aug 2011 (AOE). This is three weeks
> instead of the usual two, because the IETF week will occupy people's
> time and attention.
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:54:06 -0700

I have read the document and think it would be a useful standard. In specific, wearing my very dusty vCard-supporter hat, the constrained profile for vCard seems quite appropriate.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:00:22 -0700

Have read -06 and I think (generally) it is fine to progress with a tiny
personal nit.

I did wonder as I was reading the document if the object is optional or
mandatory in the repository structure? For example if I create a ROA, MUST I
create a Ghostbusters record. I can certainly see that for healthy NOC
operation, a Ghostbusters record is a really nice thing to have for allowing
others to contact you. Perhaps a sentence or two clarifying this.

This might also then help the relying parties in terms of their validation
workload. (not that the workload is high or anything) Can they happily
discard or delay the validation of the Ghostbusters record if the so choose?

Cheers
Terry