Roque,
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your comments.
I tried to extract the most relevant for discussion on text format.
1) Section 2: RFC 6487 limitation to multiple Repository Publication Points.
Comment: "6487 says that, for AIA: In this profile, a single reference to the
publication point of the immediate superior certificate MUST be present, …That RFC later
says that it’s OK to have other types of accessMethods, which contradicts the earlier
text. In any case, the latter text prohibits multiple instances of the same method (e.g.,
rynch) so …"
(Roque) In summary, RFC 5280 allows multiple "accessMethod + accessLocation". However,
RFC 6487 has the contradiction that you pointed out that would prevent not only multiple Repository
Publication Points but also for the AIA to allow RSYNC + HTTP support (something we have commented
in this list). Although we know that today the AIA has in practice little use, I think we would
need to update RFC 6487 in the text to remove the reference to the "single reference".
It's not a contradiction for 6487 to be more restrictive in this
respect. 6487 imposes a number of restrictions relative to 5280. So, if
we decide to change 6487 it should be because we decide that
we need the flexibility, not because 6487 was inconsistent wrt AIA vs.
SIA and CRLDP.
2) Section 3:
"In order to increase robustness, It is RECOMMENDED that a different FQDN could be
resolved to IP addresses included in ROA objects from different CAs and hosted in diverse
Repository Publication Points."
Comment:"I can’t understand the latter part of this sentence."
(Roque) The idea is that the different FQDN: rpki.operator1.org,
rpki.operator2.net resolve respectively to IP1 and IP2 addresses. So, those two
addresses are recommended to be covered by different ROAs, even administrated
by different CAs. Again, the idea is to increase diversity and to avoid any
sort of circular dependency.
Good idea, but not well explained in the text. Also, this takes some
effort, if the FQDN might
resolve to multiple addresses and we have to check all of them against a
set of ROAs. How would this work for an anycast address?
3) Section 3.2
"A RP can use different rules to select the URI from which to fetch the Trust Anchor
certificate."
Comment: "Is this a good recommendation?"
(Roque) The idea here was to imitate the DNS behavior and let the RP to have their
"secret sauce" to chose the operator. Normally what you want is to chose the
closest one, that is why in DNS you keep track of the response time from the different
servers.
We already have the ability to use DNS for pub point diversity, as your
text noted. I think it might be preferable to give CAs a different
mechanism with more tightly-defined semantics to influence RP behavior
re RPKI data retrieval when we introduce these additional mechanisms.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
