At 9:20 AM +1000 6/12/10, Geoff Huston wrote:
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.
Can you elaborate on this concern?
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?
I initially investigated an approach that allows a CA at any point in
the hierarchy to begin using the next alg suite, subject only to the
constraint that the CA's parent is prepared to effect PoP with the
new alg suite when issuing a cert to that CA. However, this approach
seems to result in much greater complexity than a top-down approach.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
