Securing Inter-Domain Routing (SIDR) WG Meeting

Tuesday 24th March, 9:00 - 11:30am

Chairs: Sandy Murphy, Geoff Huston
Minutes: Geoff Huston

AGENDA:

• Administrivia
  Minute taker
  Jabber Scribe
  Blue Sheets
  Agenda Bashing
   
  
• Outside SIDR work
  • KMART
  
   
  
• Updated Drafts
  • RPKI Architecture
    draft-ietf-sidr-arch-06.txt
    Matt Lepinski
     
    
  • Certificate Policy
    draft-ietf-sidr-cp-05.txt
    Stephen Kent
  
   
  
• New Drafts
  • Trust Anchor Material
    draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt
    Geoff Huston
  
   
  
• General Discussion
  • Partial Deployment Considerations (BOAs, etc)
    Geoff Huston

SUMMARY:

The WG reviewed some drafts that had been updated since IETF 73.

The adoption of draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt as a WG dociument will be referred to the WG mailing list.

There was no clear consensus on any further WG actions.

ACTIONS:

• WG chair to refer WG adoption of draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt to the WG mailing list.

NOTES:

• Outside SIDR work
   
  Greg Lebovitz spoke to the slide on the current IETF work on improving the security of routing protocol transports (KMART). The objective of the work is to improve manual key mechanisms to "modernise" practices and secondly to add automated key management protocols.
   
  
• Updated Drafts
   
  
  • RPKI Architecture
    [see presentation slides]
     
    The WG discussed the proposal in the draft relating to name conventions and the selective use of meaningful names and the implications for CAs without clear resolution. The matter is to be referred to the WG mailing list.
     
    The WG discussed the name change relating to the use of the serial number element in the subject name and the document's author agreed to specity in the next version of the draft that the use of serial number in the subject name was a choice for the CA to make.
     
    
  • Certificate Policy
    [see presentation slides]
     
    The WG discussed a comment in favour for a shorter CP document, possibly by moving some material to the CPS without clear resolution.
     
    The WG discussed a comment in favour of omission of revocation reasons from the CP, and the removal of the prescriptive provisions relating to termination of a CA, which bear the risk of misinterpretation, without clear resolution.
     
    
• New Drafts
   
  
  • Trust Anchor Material
    [see presentation slides]
     
    The WG questionedwhy this draft was published as a WG draft without a call for adoption. The co-chair volunteered to take this to the WG mailing list.
     
    The WG discussed the document without clear resolution on any aspect of the document.
     
    
• General Discussion
   
  
  • Partial Deployment Considerations (BOAs, etc)
     
    [see presentation slides]
     
    The WG discussed the material without any clear resolution.
     
    There was a call from the co-chair for some use cases to the posted to the mailing list.