Re: [sidr] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04: (with DISCUSS)

A bit of history here. After RFC6485 was published, it was discovered that it incorrectly used the same OID for all RPKI crypto uses, which conflicts with CMS specs and is inconsistent with known implementations. The wg decided to create RFC6485bis, to correct the OID problem and the OID

Re: [sidr] Validation Reconsidered (again/again) question

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, Stephen Kent wrote: So, unless the folks who volunteered to assume responsibility for the doc (all of whom were already listed as co-authors) are prepared to do a much better job in addressing these shortcomings, I object to continuing with this work. It sounds like

Re: [sidr] Validation Reconsidered (again/again) question

"This document was adopted as a WG work item, should we accept this change and complete the work or not?" Yes. I believe this change in the validation algorithm improves the operational robustness of the RPKI. If the WG chairs find themselves uncertain about the consensus on this quesiton,

Re: [sidr] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-04: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Sandy, On 20/11/2015 4:27 am, "Sandra Murphy" wrote: >A bit of history here. > >After RFC6485 was published, it was discovered that it incorrectly used >the same OID for all RPKI crypto uses, which conflicts with CMS specs and >is inconsistent with known implementations.