Hi, On 12/3/10 3:29 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote: > Andrew suggests that the new naming schemes should be added to the > repos-struct draft. > > Tim's message implies that the naming scheme would be added to the > roa-format draft (by extension, to whatever draft creates a new > repository structure element, like the ghostbusters draft). > > I'd like wg consideration as to which would be best, both now and going > forward.
option 1: add to repos-struct Currently the repos-struct draft reserves the following extensions in section 2.2: .cer certificates .crl CRLs .mft Manifests And it goes on to say that signed objects must not use these extensions. I am afraid that it's not possible to add a complete list of reserved signed object extensions to the repos-struct draft. Simply because new object types may be added later. I am afraid we won't be able to update this document all the time -- once it's standard. option 2: add to roa-format (and other signed object docs) That's why I suggested adding it to the ROA format document. The problem with this is of course that then reservations for extensions to be used in the repository are made in different locations. option 3: extract to separate doc Is it possible/better to maintain a simple separate list that maps extensions to various object types? And can this be updated more easily whenever a new signed object makes it to RFC? Current list could look a little like: .cer Certificates as described in RFC sidr-res-certs .crl CRL as specified in RFC sidr-res-certs section 5 (refers to 5280) .mft Manifest as described in RFC sidr-rpki-manifest .roa ROA as described in RFC sidr-roa-format The repos-struct document could refer to it. This option has my preference as it keeps all this stuff centralised. If updating the repos-struct document itself is possible then that option (1) has my preference. But.. as I said before. I really do not want to cause more delays. If none of the 3 options above are feasible (and nothing else is suggested) I would rather have some trial-and-error code in validators to handle everything apart from .cer, .crl and .mft than block last call on either repos-struct or roa-format.. Cheers Tim > > --Sandy > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Andrew Chi wrote: > >> On 11/18/2010 4:39 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: >>>> Call for WGLC, I support: >>>> >>>> draft-ietf-sidr-roa-format >>> >>> One very minor nit: I think it would be desirable to have a normative >>> naming scheme similar to the one used for manifests as defined in the >>> repos-struct document; using the extension .roa. >>> >> >> We'll also need to add a ghostbusters extension to repos-struct. I >> agree with Tim, and also agree it's minor. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> sidr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >> _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
