Could you please reply to the list and say whether you believe that the draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-rtr-rfc6810-bis-04.txt version satisfies your comments? It would help with the process.
--Sandy On Mar 25, 2015, at 5:13 PM, "Borchert, Oliver" <oliver.borch...@nist.gov> wrote: > David, > > A correction for my previous email, I mixed up session id and serial > number. > I think to keep it simple for version 0 - 1 switches and future changes, a > change > Within the session id and version id should trigger a “Cache Reset” by the > cache > And the client must resynch with the server. > And yes, wording in this matter might need to be added - but still it also > could > Be an implementation issue. > > Oliver > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Oliver Borchert, Computer Scientist > National Institute of Standards and Technology > (Phone) 301.975.4856 , (Fax) 301.975.6238 > > > > > > On 3/24/15, 10:58 AM, "Borchert, Oliver" <oliver.borch...@nist.gov> wrote: > >> Isn¹t this an implementation issue? The client either speaks 0 or 1. As >> long as the server >> keeps track of the version for the session IMHO it does not matter if the >> session id is >> shared? The client doesn¹t know about it. Lets say one encounter a new key >> and this >> Only triggers a PDU 9, the server sends send out the notification. The >> client can but must not >> React to it anyhow. If the client reacts, the server sends an end of >> update to a version 0 >> session and all pdu 9 updates to a version 1 session. >> I don¹t see a needed wording here. Not yet but IŒm open for enlightenment. >> >> Oliver >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> Oliver Borchert, Computer Scientist >> National Institute of Standards and Technology >> (Phone) 301.975.4856 , (Fax) 301.975.6238 >> >> >> >> >> >> On 3/24/15, 10:36 AM, "David Mandelberg" <da...@mandelberg.org> wrote: >> >>> Rob and I were talking about rpki-rtr, and I came up with another >>> potential issue with switching between protocol versions. I don't see >>> any text about whether a single session (session id and serial numbers) >>> can be used for both version 0 and 1. If a router has a valid version 0 >>> session, upgrades to version 1, and issues a serial query with the same >>> session id and serial number, it's unclear what the server should do. >>> Could we add text to the document saying that the cache MUST maintain a >>> separate session for each protocol version it supports, and a router >>> MUST NOT attempt to reuse session information across multiple protocol >>> versions? >>> >>> -- >>> David Eric Mandelberg / dseomn >>> http://david.mandelberg.org/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
