Before I lend my support to either the simpler format or the current compound TA format I'd like to see a pros/cons list comparing the two approaches.
While I find myself liking simple approaches but I also wonder if it has any downfalls in use. Cheers Terry On 7/06/10 2:21 PM, "Samuel Weiler" <[email protected]> wrote: > I just submitted an i-d documenting a much simpler trust anchor format > than the one in the current WG draft. Like the format in the WG doc, > this one allows for a long-lived trust anchor even though the unlying > certificate changes more often, e.g. when new resources are added. > This format has the advantage of being noticeably simpler. > > I encourage the WG to adopt this format in place of the one in the > current WG doc. > > -- Sam > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:30:02 -0700 (PDT) > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: I-D Action:draft-weiler-sidr-trust-anchor-format-00.txt > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : RPKI Trust Anchor Format > Author(s) : S. Weiler > Filename : draft-weiler-sidr-trust-anchor-format-00.txt > Pages : 4 > Date : 2010-06-06 > > This document describes a simple convention for distributing trust > anchors for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-weiler-sidr-trust-anchor-format-00.t > xt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
