Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Tue, 03 May 2011 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.com>
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 65380E0863; Tue, 3 May 2011 12:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.878
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.721, 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 WeFLCisf3HwZ; Tue, 3 May 2011 12:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F42E066E; Tue, 3 May 2011 12:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dommiel.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:60540 helo=[10.27.179.212]) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.74 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1QHLOQ-00026p-Pp; Tue, 03 May 2011 15:36:25 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240800c9e604898d1c@[193.0.26.186]>
In-Reply-To: <tslr58fbz9t.fsf@mit.edu>
References: <tslhbbag9m1.fsf@mit.edu> <4D791B26.8020001@vpnc.org> <tsl4o7ag5fw.fsf@mit.edu> <4D79271E.6080707@vpnc.org> <tslzkp2elyf.fsf@mit.edu> <p06240801c9ce424e70b1@[128.89.89.62]> <tsl62q2tj33.fsf@mit.edu> <p06240808c9e45144c8f9@[10.242.22.94]> <tslr58fbz9t.fsf@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 15:16:28 -0400
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Cc: draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs@tools.ietf.org, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>, ietf@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs
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: Tue, 03 May 2011 19:36:35 -0000

At 11:05 AM -0400 5/3/11, Sam Hartman wrote:
>Let me make sure I'm understanding what you're saying.  I can have
>multiple ROAs for the same set of prefixes in the repository and valid
>at the same time: one signed by a new certificate and one signed by a
>previous certificate?  If so, I think I now begin to understand why the
>SIDR working group believes this is a reasonable strategy.

yes, that is correct.  This is an essential part of the alg transition
mechanism.

>
>I guess the only question I'd have remaining is whether ROAs or other
>signed objects are intended to be used in other protocols besides simply
>living in the SIDR repository?

The RPKI repository is designed to support a specific, narrow set of
apps. That's what the CP says, and we try to make these certs unattractive
for other apps, e.g., by use of the non-meaningful names.

Steve