wrt: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests-06
I exchanged several messages with a manifest document author asking for
help with my confusion regarding some points in this draft, particularly
having to do with timing issues in publication of new manifests and in
sharing a repository publication point with a different CA cert.
It is pretty clear to me that different implementation choices,
particularly on re-key of a CA, could make the RPKI system "noisy" (in the
term used by my correspondent), producing non-fatal error messages that
would need to be inspected and dealt with (and commonly dismissed).
I also see no impact on routing (routing does not break) from these
implementation decisions, so there the draft could progress as is without
harm.
But I can see the need for some implementation guidance.
The wg list last year engaged in a discussion of synchronization timing
recommendations in the res-certs draft. In that discussion, one
suggestion was to produce a separate operations guide along the lines of a
BCP. It seems to me that this implementation guidance could be similarly
separated.
What says the wg on the desire for implementation guidance? Needed or
not?
If needed, what says the wg on the need for separate implementation
guidance document(s) vs guidance in the manifest document itself?
--Sandy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
