Re: [secdir] SECdir review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests ( and Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests-10)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 07 May 2011 10:50 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA75E0663; Sat, 7 May 2011 03:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3T0pcTTMKnA7; Sat, 7 May 2011 03:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scss.tcd.ie (hermes.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.32.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 882D2E0693; Sat, 7 May 2011 03:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FA1171C3C; Sat, 7 May 2011 11:50:10 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1304765409; bh=OYVL/o7fXT/jct 5RjGEY9SPu+30k4FaCmGq2dCfxDHI=; b=QjdtdJCohZvuOevRreKNP2ivO6+PUQ QlwhI/0NOHf8qqeuV2WPTMLrsGKMnpp5ERFeUwmPLcRIPThJv9NRh+Tz4FwX6sji utG96AvSh3wtBfor2AfrnHeKoa1XkMJ1W4bmoS4Zv0cR4Ibd1QzrqUj7+HZyOeJf iBq0K8BKGhze3+KWtN+tzmSHNWC8g+vziq60SrD9UYJ5AAj33Fn/EMaKmN1q6Hd/ sYzla9wePMjjI29gc0DQV54SZ6NIiOj4rmgp/LzPwECDAL2Wln+oJp1sA69m9LUA K1bvYoq4a6bX47lmy8KcRYiKzuJRUV+atHDdWhPfNr53aiP4lI+1RWoA==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id fkHetV-GPhG5; Sat, 7 May 2011 11:50:09 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.9] (unknown [86.41.10.88]) by smtp.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7F0B171C3B; Sat, 7 May 2011 11:50:07 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <4DC523DF.4010803@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 11:50:07 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
References: <7A33AE35-5B39-466E-BF31-28BFD36081C5@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <7A33AE35-5B39-466E-BF31-28BFD36081C5@apnic.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: sidr-chairs@tools.ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests.all@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECdir review of draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests ( and Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests-10)
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 10:50:22 -0000

Folks,

I've updated my discusss to reflect the points below basically
just asking for the changes that Geoff indicates they want to
make. I agree that most of the rest will be addressed in other
sidr docs. (Nico - if you see a major problem with that, let
me know please.)

Thanks all,
S.

On 05/05/11 05:43, Geoff Huston wrote:
>>> 5.2.  Considerations for Manifest Generation
>>> >> 
>>> >>   A new manifest MUST be issued on or before the nextUpdate time.
>> > 
>> > Well, a new manifest must be published on or before the nextUpdate time.
>> > Since RPs clocks will have some skew, new manifests should really be
>> > published some time ahead of the nextUpdate time.  A few seconds or
>> > minutes will do.  See comments on section 6.2.
> RESPONSE:
> 
> We'll change this to “issued and published.”
>