Not seeing any objections I’ll go ahead and spin a new version over the weekend.
spt On Jun 02, 2015, at 13:32, David Mandelberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > There's some text in draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-10 sections 3.1 and > 3.1.3 that I found confusing. For reference, > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-10#section-3.1: > > This profile is also based on [RFC6487] and > only the differences between this profile and the profile in > [RFC6487] are listed. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-10#section-3.1.3: > > The following X.509 V3 extensions MUST be present (or MUST be absent, > if so stated) in a conforming BGPSEC Router Certificate, except where > explicitly noted otherwise. No other extensions are allowed in a > conforming BGPSEC Router Certificate. > > I checked with the authors, and the intent was that "the following" refers to > all extensions in RFC6487 and the updates to extensions in > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-10. However, I initially read the text in > 3.1.3 as forbidding all extensions not mentioned in > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles-10, including some useful ones like the > SKI. > > I think it might be clearer to simply remove the entire first paragraph of > section 3.1.3. RFC 6487 section 4.8 contains similar[0] text, and section 3.1 > of the draft makes it clear that RFC 6487 section 4.8 applies. > > [0] But not the same. That issue should probably be handled by > draft-rhansen-sidr-rfc6487bis though. > > -- > David Eric Mandelberg / dseomn > http://david.mandelberg.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
