[156130] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Fri Sep 7 02:45:50 2012
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 06:45:16 +0000
In-Reply-To: <m2mx12739t.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network
Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 7, 2012, at 7:31 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
wrote:
>> If a relying party's use of PKI infrastructure legally equated to=20
>> acceptance of the relying party agreement (RPA), then having an=20
>> explicit record of acceptance of the RPA would not be necessary. =20
>>=20
>> Alas, it does not appear possible to equate use of PKI certificates=20
>> with agreement to the associated RPA (and some might argue that this=20
>> is a feature, as some folks would not want to be legally bound to an=20
>> agreement which they did not explicitly review and accept.)
>=20
> do you have a r&d group devoted to how much you can delay, damage, warp,
> half-assed implement, ... rpki? look around you at the real world, the
> other rirs (especiall ripe/ncc), etc. the only part of it where arin
> seems to be doing a serious job is bs generation. thanks.
Good morning Randy -=20
Are you indicating that RPKI services should be offered without any
RPA (and/or CPS) at all, or that these agreements should legally=20
adhere without explicit agreement? There is an statement expressing
that CPS or RPA might benefit from the latter treatment in section=20
3.4 of the Internet PKI framework (RFC 3647), but it does not actually
hold legally true at the present time. If you have more insight or=20
clarity on this matter, it would be most welcome.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
