Sandy, Yes I do believe the comments are satisfied, Oliver
On 7/16/15 1:05 PM, "Sandra Murphy" <sa...@tislabs.com> wrote: >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 > _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
