#14: Nit Report - architecture document
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: g...@… | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: minor | Milestone:
Component: arch | Version:
Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords:
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Sam Weiler has noted
Section 4.3 (access protocols): the rsync item, as noted by others.
4.3 also uses 2119 language to specify requirements for (current and
future) access protocols. I'm not convinced that language is
appropriate for these requirements.
5 (Manifests) allows an EE cert to sign multiple manifests. That
seems inconsistent with section 2.3 re: one-to-one correspondence.
3.2 "There is no independent method of invoking a ROA."
s/invoking/revoking/, perhaps?
Section 7.1: "However, if the certificates for these allocations
contain different validity intervals, creating a certificate that
combines them might create problems, and thus is NOT RECOMMENDED."
Doesn't this problem arise when the underlying validity (e.g. the
validity of the assignment/allocation/etc.) intervals vary, rather
than the cert validity intervals? Perhaps this could be clearer.
7.2 "Furthermore, a relying party must fetch new ROAs from the
repository system before taking any routing action in response to a
ROA revocation." Is this reflected in the validation drafts? It
should be likely be repeated in section 3 or 4 of the ROA format doc.
--
Ticket URL: <http://zinfandel.levkowetz.com/wg/sidr/trac/ticket/14>
sidr <http://tools.ietf.org/sidr/>
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
