On 12/06/2010, at 8:08 AM, Stephen Kent wrote: > > Given these assumptions, we have adopted an initial design in which both key > rollover and algorithm suite migration entail an interval during which old > and new CA certificates, CRLs, and signed objects are maintained in parallel > in the repository system. For key rollover, we anticipate that this interval > will be relatively brief, say 3-7 days. For algorithm suite migration we > anticipate that it will be much longer, as noted above in assumption #3. >
For algorithm suite migration this extended period of parallel operation with an imposition of top down migration is certainly an interesting approach. The comments in section 3 of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-algs-01.txt address this form of algorithm migration and cast some doubt as to the feasibility of such an approach within the scope of conventional operational practices when looking at the behaviour of widely distributed data structures. If the operational impost of maintenance of parallel structures over an extended period was considered to be too risky in terms of ensuring a requirement for precise coherence between the multiple structures and ensuring identical outcomes for every relying party , are there alternative approaches that mitigate some of these risks? > > We would like to receive feedback from the WG before we go to far with this > design. Please consider the assumptions/goals described above and let us > know if you agree with them, if you think they should be modified, or if you > want to suggest others. At this point, I do not agree with the approach you describe here, given the considerations summarized above. It appears to describe a path of high complexity and high risk of chaotic outcomes. Geoff _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
