Re: [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-04

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

hi kyle

> Can one of the authors cite a specific reference to the problem that
> this draft is trying to address? A written example of where this
> "false notion" exists?

let be be lazy and quote the response to a similar question in an
artart review

    a few years back, two of the co-authors of a lot of sidr rfcs, working
    at apnic (supposedly a prudent steward of the net infra), put up a "sign
    arbitrary blob" service, with no warnings of the semantics.  one of them
    just wrote to say he thought 6480 was sufficient; which pretty much says
    it all.

    and early drafts and discussions of the first two informative references

       [I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc]
		  Snijders, J., Harrison, T., and B. Maddison, "Resource
		  Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) object profile for Signed
		  Checklist (RSC)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
		  ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-06, 12 February 2022,
		  <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-
		  rsc-06.txt>.

       [I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta]
		  Michaelson, G. G., Huston, G., Harrison, T., Bruijnzeels,
		  T., and M. Hoffmann, "A profile for Resource Tagged
		  Attestations (RTAs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
		  draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta-00, 21 January 2021,
		  <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-
		  rta-00.txt>.

    brought to light massive misunderstanding and misrepresentation, despite
    6480

yes, this is depressing and a bit shocking.  sad to say, those terms can
be applied to a fair bit of RPKI deployment.

randy