> I would propose adding some text to this draft (probably as a > sub-section in section 2) that says that the SIA defined in RFC 6487 is > omitted when a certificate is used to sign RPSL objects.
perhaps you might also include your reasoning for this seemingly odd choice. > I agree that the original text allowing multiple signatures supports > the case where the components of the primary key of the object (i.e., > prefix+ASN) come from different resource holders. I will restore that > text. this is gonna be really simple; no complications at all i am sure. btw, was this a consensus of the wg? randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
