On 04/12/2010, at 9:04 AM, Randy Bush 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. >> >> I support adding .roa; I didn't realize it was not there already. >> >> I think we can wait for GB, because it is a new doc, not yet final >> (it was just adopted by the WG). We will need to have each new RPKI >> signed object specify it's file extension for the future, so why now >> start with the GB doc, when it is approved. > > lemme repeat. keeping track of a changing list of identifiers is (part > of) the iana function and is why we have iana consideration sections in > documents. > > probably repo structure should create the registry with certs and > manifests and crls, and roa, ghostbusters, ... should add to it.
this works for me as well. I'll respin the draft with iana considerations added for registry. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
