Subject: [sidr] Soliciting agenda ideas for Vancouver

From: SIDR Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:40:48 -0400 (EDT)

The SIDR chairs and I solicit your suggestions for agenda topics for 
the upcoming physical meeting in Vancouver.

Please give thought to topics that would benefit from in-person 
discussion at this particular time -- things that are ripe for 
progress but otherwise stalled, controversial questions that may 
benefit from face-to-face discussion, etc.  We also welcome your 
suggestions for people who may be effective facilitators for 
particular conversations.

The Reply-To header has been set deliberately.  If necessary, you may 
send off-list suggestions to [email-masked].

We would appreciate having your reply by one week from today, Tuesday, 
22 October, noting that draft WG agendas are due on the following day.

-- Sam

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:12:56 -0400

Assuming the agenda doesn't fill up with more urgent stuff, I should
talk about draft-austein-sidr-rpki-oob-setup.

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 13:03:18 -0400

Sam and I think we probably should say something about
draft-ietf-sidr-publication, if only we knew what.

I just submitted -04, partly to get the expired draft back in front of
people's eyes, partly to address formatting issues that made the
schema and examples unnecessarily hard to read.  An rfcdiff of the
changes is available at:

  http://subvert-ietf.hactrn.net/sidr-publication/draft-ietf-sidr-publication-04-from-3.diff.html

The question for the WG, though, is where we want to go with this
draft.  It's not dead: my implementation uses an old version of it,
Tim based parts of draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-delta-protocol on it, and
at one point the WG agreed that it was a useful tool to have in the
box, which is why it's a WG document.  But it has not gotten a lot of
traction recently.  We suspect this is because interoperable
publication service is not currently on anybody's critical path.

Tim suggested to me at one point that perhaps we should drop the
entire control sub-protocol from this draft, leaving just the
publication sub-protocol.  This seems worth discussing.  We included
the control protocol in the original draft because the only existing
implementation (mine) uses it, but one could make a reasonable case
that it's only the publication sub-protocol which brings any real
value as an open public standard.

For the record, this agenda request and the -04 version come from two
of the draft's three authors.  We have a query out to our third
co-author, but have not yet heard back, so please blame anything to do
with this draft since -03 on me and Sam.

---

From: SIDR Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:07:13 -0400 (EDT)

Additionally, remember that the draft deadline is today.

-- Sam

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, SIDR Secretary wrote:

> The SIDR chairs and I solicit your suggestions for agenda topics for the 
> upcoming physical meeting in Vancouver.
>
> Please give thought to topics that would benefit from in-person discussion at 
> this particular time -- things that are ripe for progress but otherwise 
> stalled, controversial questions that may benefit from face-to-face 
> discussion, etc.  We also welcome your suggestions for people who may be 
> effective facilitators for particular conversations.
>
> The Reply-To header has been set deliberately.  If necessary, you may send 
> off-list suggestions to [email-masked].
>
> We would appreciate having your reply by one week from today, Tuesday, 22 
> October, noting that draft WG agendas are due on the following day.
>
> -- Sam
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>
>

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:08:28 -0400

Rob,

I re-read your doc and I'm in favor of having SIDR pursue this work.
because it retains rsync as the RP fetch protocol, it should be
compatible with current deployments.

Steve