Re: [sidr] [Sidrops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8416 (7080)

Job Snijders <> Mon, 22 August 2022 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8C5C1526E8 for <>; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 01:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0yC_lrthHwmD for <>; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 01:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F937C1526E6 for <>; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 01:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o3so5309743ilf.7 for <>; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 01:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=vdJHk4XDC2FNICBjAi2ECAKQL9mNxxmd20l9VNK5gao=; b=C3/cXXRvO8YdXVoRuzfKL5iMAiG9MZ+XxvVWoe1IqOBLo4JJlG5DjS0ZTw09Qoyszq Ma7BaYwL/vh0rLkkLE1h2pu6G7S/32wAkg/p9mGM1Jw4aCTPoSUdqSjfwg4Z3Feh/KGe 4xYQ5/pIKgbmWWBxmKwcidqZTYOTKMvP1i1Iw=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=vdJHk4XDC2FNICBjAi2ECAKQL9mNxxmd20l9VNK5gao=; b=CgUJPKKcTJnZznmtk9HCsRuQXh2ACNtZjH8IoUkXVfwz9io1ALlXMuCYRiA2HH5Slx j1BsyDX566AaqwdiRt/srxpfcXPoC3n4dcxwanKyS0xRfImAvU7y5/pTpKH/gspY0PQH AUN6f7sHtqMVWHDcvqPO5zPo3QDTJYVXxGE10/myDThg30UHFncYgjS/9YzLjB6zWmd4 XZ94BfCAS/rHnQwQEcy1pJmRfMzo7Lp8PVYXwkjyBwr4fUK51uBdg48ofiMXh6evY9Sb F1Gsfq9Y/ZhBrz6isE0S7eoWeducOYcdCbluqvoeniJPq0xF+kwRTtQJuYQeq4paP08P RP7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1nbDHMiRfhkApnNuOyA/4kRdrNwYAPrszr1xrpGBRQ8mzAN4FO bQV61L9PRRl/cXKdOT2wtt8/pwcUMj/o7z0poygwsWNH3WI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6IuWTzjG3K2YmddwSCgAjRzyLSTCKe/ZY77shTLSX5aGNGnvRMfcJafWxvVpEOX47a74GPUrvPiOBaxn/pFWA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:12eb:b0:2e9:9048:903b with SMTP id l11-20020a056e0212eb00b002e99048903bmr3173941iln.323.1661158476487; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 01:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20220810212520.ateioe73xzawcldf@benm-laptop> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Job Snijders <>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 10:54:25 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Tim Bruijnzeels <>
Cc: Ben Maddison <>, SIDR Operations WG <>, Warren Kumari <>,,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e835db05e6d09878"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] [Sidrops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8416 (7080)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 08:54:41 -0000

Hi all,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 at 10:29, Tim Bruijnzeels <> wrote:

> Hi Warren, all,
> I (co-author) agree that this was an oversight. I have no objections to
> the change.
> However.. I haven't checked, but beware that current implementations might
> fail to parse the file if a "comment" member is added here, if they are
> (overly) strict. I expect that most will simply ignore this member. Perhaps
> it's wise that this is verified before finalising the errata.

A similar concern was expressed (in opposition of) tidying up a missing
constraint in ROA EE certificates:

I think the working group needs to decide on a few questions in both cases:

1) was it the intent to permit AS Resources / forbid Comments?
2) is any known running code going to fall over - if the errata is approved?
3) have there been ROAs / SLURM files in the observable universe which
would suddenly be “out-of-spec”, if the errata is approved?

Kind regards,