[governance] Re: What is RPKI and why should you care about it?

[McTim]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer
<bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:25:14AM +0300,
>  McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote
>  a message of 35 lines which said:
>
>> I am 'shocked, shocked!'  to find that "running code wins"...
>
> If "running code" trumps law and policy, it has a name:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy
>
>> While I applaud your attempt at capacity building around this issue,
>> I would hope that you focus on letting folk know how they can
>> participate (and on encouraging them to do so) in the IETF and RIR
>> processes that you will be talking about.
>
> It seems you did not read the IGP paper which pointed

I must admit, I only skimmed it.  My reaction in this case is based
mostly on the IGP blog, which tends to be overly dramatic.  "It's
likely the most important governance issue you've never heard of.".
IIRC, they took the same (centralization of institutional power) tack
in re: DNSSEC deployment as well.

(and rightly so)
> that the deployment of the RPKI is done without any public
> specification or policy for these very organisations. The IETF did not
> produce one RFC yet <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/sidr/>

besides the 20 drafts available on the above url and

4593 :http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4593
 and
3779: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3779.txt

you mean?

 and the RIR did
> not produce any formal policy (only proposals like RIPE 2008-04
> <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-04.html>).

I'm not convinced that this is a policy matter for the RIR communities
as much of an internal RIR process (change to IRR/RIR Databases).
Value Added Services offered by an RIR are done according to their
Activity Plans, which are subject to the approval of their
memberships.

Here are some links for those who want to learn more:

http://labs.ripe.net/Members/agowland/ripe-ncc-validator-for-resource-certification

http://lacnic.net/cgi-bin/lacnic/nav?stkey=3242314-1573119926&lg=EN&page=/en/rpki/index.html

>
> So, even if you are a True Believer in RIR's Bottom-Up,
> Consensus-Based, etc, policy development process, you cannot use it as
> an argument here.

What fora would you suggest for "public specification or policy" on
this issue if not the IETF?

FYI, I am familiar with the RPKI work because of attendance (usually
remotely) of RIR meetings, which is why I mentioned the RIRs.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t