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

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 19:26:21 -0500

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 4:11 AM Ben Maddison
<benm=[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> 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

I see several use cases for this work as well, and I support it's adoption.

-andy

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 16:26:33 +0000

Dear group,

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 10:04:50AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> 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).

I support adoption, and I am willing to try to create a validator
implementation based on OpenBSD's rpki-client. During implementation
feedback in the current document & questions can be shared with the
group, hopefully increasing the document's readability for future
implementers.

A particular use case stands out to me: the PeeringDB platform could use
RTAs to validate ownership of PeeringDB "IX" and "Network" objects,
greatly increasing reliability of its user-submitted database, while
further reducing friction in its onboarding processes.

I would like to recommend the authors to include a copy of the RFC 7942
section 2.1 boilerplate text in the draft (optionally to be removed by
the RFC Editor) to help track implementations. Please make it clear
the 'signer' and 'validator' components are implemented separately.

Congratulations to both APNIC and NLNetlabs for already having
implemented such an incredibly innovative application of the RPKI. I'm
certain RTAs will prove to be useful in a myriad of B2B processes.

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 12:18:51 -0500

It sounds like there are enough folk curiousinterested/with-use-cases
that this draft can get picked up by SIDROPS for some more
work/discussion.

Could the authors please submit a draft in their own time with the
properly re-named title/etc? :) thanks!
-chris
(also, happy holidays)

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 10:04 AM Christopher Morrow
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Thanks!
> -chris
> co-chair-persona