<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 0,
0); font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 16px;" text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/Oct/18 01:21, John Curran wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C39FADBE-2A1B-41CD-9EF9-FB5D22A1D999@arin.net"
style="border-left: 2px solid #009900 !important; border-right:
2px solid #009900 !important; padding: 0px 15px 0px 15px; margin:
8px 2px; background-color: null !important; color: null
!important;">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<span style="font-size: 13px;" class=""></span>
<div style="font-size: 13px;" class=""> </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px;" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div style="font-size: 13px;" class="">It is possible to architect
the various legalities surrounding RPKI to support any of the
above outcomes, but it first requires a shared understanding of
what the network community believes is the correct outcome.
There is likely some on the nanog mailing list who have a view
on this matter, so I pose the question of "who should be
responsible" for consequences of RPKI RIR CA failure to this
list for further discussion.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
John, in the instance where all RIR's transition to a single "All
Resource" TA, what would, in your mind, be the (potential) liability
considerations?<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>