[address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Immo 'FaUl' Wehrenberg
immo.ripe at be.free.de
Tue May 3 20:21:12 CEST 2011
Martin wrote: > > Well, we had that Youtube incedent and there where a few more, so there > > are people demanding it. > I am well aware that there is a demand by powerful forces for RPKI or > something similar. I do not think the youtube incident and a handful > other motivate such a drastic system. I don't see that further. However, engineering tends to overengineer things to not only solve the imminent problems, but also problems that could occure somewhen in the future. I don't see RPKI designed as an evil censorship tool. I'd bet it isn't even bad engineered (eventhough i haven't had a deeper look on the design yet). The only point is that its implementation has implications that from my point of view hasn't been taken into account properly until now. > > I don't think that denying that fact and just walk away would get us any further here again. > I welcome research and debate of this and alternative solutions to > achieve the goal of avoiding the Youtube incident or making its impact > less hurtful. Fine. Thats exactly what I think should be done. Take the concerns mentioned seriously and put further work to resolve the problems. > > In contrary, if people seriously start to demand it and we are going to say "well, > > we will not do something here" then they will start doing that in > > some other forum, which i would presume is much worse as we here > > can discuss and raise our concerns. > Hopefully, the respective WG's at RIPE will remain in charge of the > PDP process of their respective areas? If the WG is just sticking their head into the sand and just says 'no, we're against it' without supplying any strategy to archive a solution everybody can live with, this may well change. And that was exactly my point here. Work must be going towards that solution and not just discarding the current one. I hope that clarifys things. Immo -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110503/3bc86b79/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-08 (Initial Certification Policy in the RIPE NCC Service Region) going to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]