o RFC.
> A: Big Endian.
>
> Regards,
> Jakob.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sidr On Behalf Of Alberto Leiva
> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 2:40 PM
> To: sidr@ietf.org
> Subject: [sidr] Endianness of RTR
>
> Hi
>
> Please forgive me if this is a
Hi
Please forgive me if this is a stupid question, but
What is the endianness of the RTR protocol? (RFCs 6810 and 8210)
And why does it seem like it's not specified in the RFCs?
Thanks
Alberto
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
Ok, thanks.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:39 PM Russ Housley wrote:
>
> See the Section on DER encoding at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X.690.
>
> > On Jan 10, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Alberto Leiva wrote:
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > I have a question:
> >
>
Hello.
I have a question:
RFC 6488 section 3.1.l (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6488#section-3)
wants relying parties (RPs) to validate that all RPKI signed objects
are DER-encoded, which (I think) means that they must be BER-encoded
with minimal and unique representations.
But I have found at
I have three questions:
1
Section 4.8.8.1 has the following paragraph:
This extension MUST have an instance of an accessMethod of id-ad-
caRepository, with an accessLocation form of a URI that MUST specify
an rsync URI [RFC5781]. (...) Other accessDescription elements with
e next CRL will be issued.
>
> CRLs might be issued early, but this is a promise that a fresh one will be
> issued on or before the nextUpdate date.
>
> So, in this case, it is a promise that a manifest will be issued on or before
> the nextUpdate date.
>
> Russ
>
Hello
Another question.
RFC 7935 states the following:
3.1. Public Key Format
(...)
algorithm (which is an AlgorithmIdentifier type):
The object identifier for RSA PKCS #1 v1.5 with SHA-256 MUST be
used in the algorithm field, as specified in Section 5 of
[RFC4055].
I see. Is this erratum-worthy?
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:23 AM Russ Housley wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 22, 2019, at 6:18 PM, Alberto Leiva wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > Another question.
> >
> > RFC 7935 states the following:
> >
> &
rfc8608, or does the information there reflect
> existing practice?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> On May 23, 2019 at 2:17:17 PM, Alberto Leiva (ydah...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> I see. Is this erratum-worthy?
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:23 AM Russ Housley wrote:
&g
Oh, never mind. Both sections include "BGPsec Router Certificates."
*scraches head* I don't know what's happening.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:20 PM Alberto Leiva wrote:
>
> I think those particular sections of RFCs 7935 and 8608 are talking
> about different documents:
>
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
