Hi Tim, On 5/18/16 10:32 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > Hi, > >> On 18 May 2016, at 15:08, Brian Haberman <br...@innovationslab.net> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Terry, >> >> On 5/17/16 11:37 PM, Terry Manderson wrote: >>> Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-11: Discuss >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to >>> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free >>> to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> Please refer to >>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for >>> more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found >>> here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> DISCUSS: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> Thank you for putting substantial effort into this document. >>> >>> I have a few discusses. I hope they can be resolved quickly. >>> >>> In Section 2.1. The reference to the aligned certificate which >>> has the same private key that signed the RPSL object is >>> mandatory, and defined by a RSYNC URL or a HTTP(S) URL. My >>> question surrounds the "or". The architecture of RPKI (IIRC) is >>> centered around RSYNC, and thus SIA/AIA values MUST have a RSYNC >>> URL, and MAY have other types. By this are you leaving it to the >>> issuing party to control the RPKI Distribution mechanisms of the >>> Replying Party? I am quite comfortable with "or" personally, >>> however this facet of fetching the RPSL Certificate to validate >>> the private key usage is seemingly orthogonal to the RPKI >>> architecture of RSYNC preferred and should be called out if 'or' >>> is the clear intention. Or, has the consensus of the WG moved on >>> from being wedded to RSYNC? >> >> I am not aware of the WG moving away from their rsync leanings... > > My take on this: for the moment I would stick to rsync as it's > required and EE certificates appearing in the rsync repository, and > leave out http(s). >
If the consensus is to remove mention of an http(s) URI, I can live with that. The current state of affairs within the SIDR documentation is such that only an rsync URI will be feasible in the near future. I don't believe that the mention of an http(s) URI in this context affects that one way or the other. Regards, Brian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
