[156135] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RPKI Pilot Participant Notice
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Fri Sep 7 04:11:27 2012
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:10:15 +0000
In-Reply-To: <m2ipbq725o.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 7:55 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>> Good morning Randy -=20
>=20
> it is late afternoon
Indeed... that may contribute significantly to the difference in=20
perspective. In the US, little details such as legal structures=20
often take on greater importance than would be otherwise warranted.
>> Are you indicating that RPKI services should be offered without any
>> RPA (and/or CPS) at all, or that these agreements should legally
>> adhere without explicit agreement? There is an statement expressing
>> that CPS or RPA might benefit from the latter treatment in section
>> 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 clarity on this matter, it would be most welcome.
>=20
> does arin run an irr instance? =20
Yes.
> how much legal bs have you wrapped around it?
If we were establishing it today, I do not know what, if any, legal
machinations would be needed. This is similar to RFCs, which were
published first without any preamble but now have significant legal
structure at the front.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
