Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053021B30D6; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 13:16:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GtrtmKVI97nh; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 13:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B400B1B30C1; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 13:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B175228B0041; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:16:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD1B1F8035; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:16:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [sidr] Last Call: (Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchor Locator) to Proposed Standard Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E50274CF-4E2E-48E5-AE5F-3F2B4EA6C583"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5 From: Sandra Murphy In-Reply-To: <20150730155133.D18C719D848A@minas-ithil.hactrn.net> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:16:22 -0400 Message-Id: <19AFB4E0-C337-4E81-83C7-087F7E1CA4B9@tislabs.com> References: <20150709134637.7120.70507.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55A5E727.7020605@bbn.com> <55B97546.3060200@bbn.com> <20150730155133.D18C719D848A@minas-ithil.hactrn.net> To: Rob Austein X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: sidr@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF-Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 20:16:36 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E50274CF-4E2E-48E5-AE5F-3F2B4EA6C583 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Rob Austein wrote: >=20 > I prefer Richard's option 2 (allow but do not require linebreaks), > which is what RFC 6490 RP implementations had to support anyway. >=20 Richard=92s option 2 allows insertion of line breaks in a TAL. Should we add a =93Relying parties MUST ignore line breaks/whitespace=94 = as well? Richard=92s message agrees that everyone=92s relying party code he=92s = looked at does that anyway. =97Sandy --Apple-Mail=_E50274CF-4E2E-48E5-AE5F-3F2B4EA6C583 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVv8whAAoJEHplpQeet0IZ+qEP/377zPmxMCPGQqFZ3nmfGjzZ vCEFP5+HjPFzmnCsuWSL5sqLSs0ItCdhs7OdrqBIoHl2cL9nO+yxu5YkxFBQDAS9 gwiM5asOtqtNVzgX/xr/0BVNz+uhTBVAYtj5xX3ZlJAeW+/ucPgqNgB/nj8vN0Af hkzHkXxrx8vGBvaL2oUTWkR/G+63/sa/arAXTQw1qOtRXKfO/zO1ZfZ2orPGz2D6 mhPTBSiONQfUYY5IgiOvpzzkXVN9Fk82aIq37nSpEP4mQh27aGhcZVoy+Me1VtJ7 +A3HTJiRuxMt+YBf5AC5y7AoXfNV62E2mjgNczhGMFY4SnnLEurhP3b0D/7eia83 SREGY6GUQsuw+GHrKpvpFu5YBS9BZ1+ZElz3Cuvw/TIBLTSnUL9i3OQkHiOSV+n5 VGveaBPpNrF9taRxKRQ7swRtsMB2uu1wd8Eg4YAav+qbkaCymo51KHEGRhMdxt12 IcothaiGwgwcTz0oB6eqiJWM7R0Zv1Eh8daJGXR/axZ4KPtX/H3HtR2mua5fzlYw BZs0aieFT68jA+r2e+WTPeovdBbHOlFw/gqY16ZfD2XTe0SAoC9Fm3TZftVc/ICG zUyDYikqGPWM/ZmrEELRwRFVUAIT+XNGFYhJ+d6eEslFCCUzzmIPqy0PsOhBfF+j 4Sl0v5H1bjlJ15d2kTEm =QoHM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E50274CF-4E2E-48E5-AE5F-3F2B4EA6C583--