Re: [g4] Re: [ca-tf] Draft pre-read document for the CA-TF workshopof 13 February

[Daniëlla Coutinho <]

Dear All,

I can inform you that the mentioned additional document has not been sent.
 Additional comments will be provided today during the workshop.

Regards,
Daniëlla


Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> On 12.02 16:12, Leo Vegoda wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On Feb 7, 2007, at 9:54 AM, Andrew de la Haye wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> By the end of this week an additional document will be provided,  
>>> containing open generic and very specific questions and discussion  
>>> items.
>> Was this document sent? I can't see it in the mail archive on the web  
>> site?
> 
> I am also curious about it. Unfortunately I cannot make the meeting today because
> I am down with a serious coughing and sneezing thing. I believe part of this doc
> was to be an exose around the following thoughts:
> 
>         - what is the service we propose ?
>                 - what is the service provided by us ?
>                         - concrete service elements
>                         - service description / draft documentation
>                 - how does one use it ?
>                         - service description / draft documentation
>                 - change/new processes at RS
>                 - change/new processes at customer
>                 - ...
> 
>         - what are the benefits to the membership
>                 - potental simplification and strengthening of provisioning processes
>                 - potential for secure routing protocols
>                 - potential for secure transfer of number resources
>                         - how will THAT work exactly?
>                 - ...
> 
>         - what are non benefits
>                 - miraculous improvement of registry data
>                 - replacement of registries
>                 - ...
> 
>         - what are the costs for the member
>                 - changed processes
>                 - cost of CA
>                         - and *here* only start about the "CA service"
> 
>         - what are the costs at the NCC
> 
>         - what is the expected uptake
>                 - slow / fast ?
>                 - does uptake affect usefulness benefits ?
>                 - measures to promote uptake
> 
>  	- what are the consequences for members who do not take up the service?
>  
> 
> 
> I'd also like to offer the following to think about:
> 
> It is often implied that certification will improve the overall quality
> of registration data and provide a better handle on who is the user of a
> certain block of address space.  I argue that it is more likely that this
> will not be the case:
> 
> 1) New certificates for existing address space will be based on the
> current registration data.  So by definition they cannot be more
> accurate.
> 
> 2) When certificates and registration databases co-exist both systems
> will diverge and show different information. Is this an improvement?
> 
> 3) When and if certificates supersede the registration databases for
> operational purposes, the incentives to maintain the registration
> databases will be reduced and registration databases will deteriorate.
> 
> Especially the last point deserves attention.  A lot of operational
> coordination is based on the registration databases; will this still be
> possible with degraded or seriously out-of-date registration databases?
> Are we prepared to loose the capability of direct operational
> coordination and to revert to a coordination model that follows peering
> relationships only?
> 
> The registration databases also serve valid functions for
> other users ranging from policy makers via law-enforcement to individual
> Internet users. Deterioration of the databases will cause dissatisfaction
> and resistance from those users. How are we going to deal with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Again apologies for not being there. Force majeure
> 
> cough/sneeze
> 
> Daniel
>