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

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Tue, 03 May 2011 15:05 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 49480E0837; Tue, 3 May 2011 08:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.617
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.617 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.352, 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 QbcrtvLDR9Bd; Tue, 3 May 2011 08:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66282E0830; Tue, 3 May 2011 08:05:24 -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 68F882033D; Tue, 3 May 2011 11:01:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 90E1041F4; Tue, 3 May 2011 11:05:18 -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]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 11:05:18 -0400
In-Reply-To: <p06240808c9e45144c8f9@[10.242.22.94]> (Stephen Kent's message of "Tue\, 3 May 2011 05\:05\:01 -0400")
Message-ID: <tslr58fbz9t.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: Tue, 03 May 2011 15:05:25 -0000

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.

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?