On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Geoff Huston wrote:
I noted, however that this was a possibility, and also noted in my posting of
the 8th that:
"The question I ask myself is should a standard specification provide
guidance to implementors and users of the tool that covers all envisaged
situations or should it only cover the cases that are most likely to occur
and leave the remainder unspecified?
My preference is the former approach, namely that a standard should be useful
for interoperation in all envisaged use cases. Given the lack of workable
alternatives here I remain of the view that the ROA specification should
include this case, with the implication that a 'standard' ROA within this
specification may contain multiple signatures. "
I agree - it's easier to have the capability defined in a way that ensures
interoperability in all cases than to have to shoehorn incompatible
implementations together later, when it turns out that we -do- have more
cases than we'd previously expected
cheers!.
==========================================================================
"A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound
desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to
avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now."
_______________________________________________
Sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
