On 08/10/2009, at 11:35 AM, Danny McPherson wrote:
On Oct 7, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
Depending on which certificate the Relying Party believes, they
might reject
(based on current WG interpretation of a ROA) the other valid
announcements
at their router. (at least that is how I'm reading it - please
correct me if
askew)
But they're not mutually exclusive, the RP would surely
permit both, no?
The relying party shouldn't have 'both' - I think having two unique
valid resource certificates from separate or the same issuer that
contains the same resources is flawed.
Terry
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
