Subject: [Sidrops] WG-ADOPTION - draft-michaelson-rpki-rta - Ends 12/10/2020 (Dec 10 2020)

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 10:04:50 -0500

Howdy WG Folks!
During our last Face-to-Face meeting the authors of:
  draft-michaelson-rpki-rta

presented their document and requested (in meeting and via email to
the list) a call for Working Group Adoption. The abstract of the
document is:

  "This document defines a Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) profile
   for a general purpose Resource Tagged Attestation (RTA), for use with
   the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI).  The objective is to
   allow an attestation, in the form of an arbitrary digital object, to
   be signed "with resources", and for validation to provide an outcome
   of "valid with resources".  The profile is intended to provide for
   the signing of an attestation with an arbitrary set of resources."

let's have a read-through, think about applicability to SIDR-OPS as it
relates to the technology we build and operate (technology and
business intersection), and provide feedback on the list before
10/12/2020 (Dec 10th).

Thanks!
-chris
co-chair-persona

---

From: Tim Bruijnzeels <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 09:54:55 +0100

Hi,

As a co-author I believe my support is implicit..

What I wanted mention though, is that NLnet Labs and APNIC have worked together on an interoperable proof-of-concept implementation of this specification. The following blog post gives a high level overview of the RTA concept, and how it can be used for testing today:

https://blog.apnic.net/2020/11/20/moving-rpki-beyond-routing-security/

Cheers
Tim

> On 19 Nov 2020, at 16:04, Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Howdy WG Folks!
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops

---

From: Ben Maddison <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:10:30 +0200

Hi all,

> business intersection), and provide feedback on the list before

As I said during the 109 meeting, I support adoption.
We have at least two immediate use cases for this:
- Ability for customers (and maybe peers more generally) to prove
  ownership of their ASN
- Ability for customers-of-customers to signal to us which TE/Anti-DDoS
  actions we should honor via communities for their address space

As I mentioned during the meeting, the first of these probably should be
exchanged outside of repo publication; the second needs to be published
in the repos so that direct communication between unrelated parties need
not be required.

As such, I think a primary focus for work on this should be to flesh-out
how in-/out-of-repo should co-exist, and how validation should be done
in each case.

Cheers,

Ben