Marco Hogewoning wrote on 07/05/2021 15:30:

Personally I am not that worried about this particular amendment. IMHO the way it is worded leaves it fairly open as to what technologies to deploy, with RPKI being just flagged as an example.

ok noted.

Important as well is that changing the recital like this, doesn't alter the scope of the directive. In that sense it only stresses the need for entities that fall within the scope to think about routing security and take appropriate measures to prevent the risks in that area. And I think we can all acknowledge that those risks do exist, so would be hard to argue against. Yep, definitely no intention to argue against the principal. We all - community, legislators, etc - agree on the importance of routing security. The only concern I had was whether codifying specific ways of handling this was advisable, but if they're not being codified, that's fine.

Nick