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

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Wed, 04 May 2011 11:48 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
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 4671FE0748; Wed, 4 May 2011 04:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.409
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 5jUNqyDuAkyA; Wed, 4 May 2011 04:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7800E0708; Wed, 4 May 2011 04:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AE862034A; Wed, 4 May 2011 07:45:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 7F43441F4; Wed, 4 May 2011 07:48:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
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> <p06240800c9e604898d1c@[193.0.26.186]> <tslk4e7a14w.fsf@mit.edu> <p06240803c9e6ae6a7fe9@[193.0.26.186]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 07:48:44 -0400
In-Reply-To: <p06240803c9e6ae6a7fe9@[193.0.26.186]> (Stephen Kent's message of "Wed\, 4 May 2011 04\:00\:18 -0400")
Message-ID: <tslboziadpf.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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: Wed, 04 May 2011 11:48:55 -0000

>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> writes:

    Stephen> The BGPSEC protocol being defined does not pass around ROAs
    Stephen> or other RPKI repository objects. It defines two new,
    Stephen> signed objects that are passed in UPDATE messages, and are
    Stephen> not stored in the repository. These objects are verified
    Stephen> using RPKI certs and CRLs, so there is a linkage.

OK, so how will the upgrade work for these signed objects?  In
particular during phase 2, when both old and new certs (under the old
and new profile) are in use, what happens with these signed objects?
Can a party generate both old and new signed objects? If so, will the
protocol scale appropriately?  If not, how does a party know which
signed object to generate?