From nobody Mon Aug 22 01:54:43 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8C5C1526E8 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 01:54:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.105 X-Spam-Level: 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=fastly.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0yC_lrthHwmD for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 01:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-il1-x12e.google.com (mail-il1-x12e.google.com [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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F937C1526E6 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 01:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x12e.google.com 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; d=fastly.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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: <20220810210643.1A9504C29D@rfcpa.amsl.com> <20220810212520.ateioe73xzawcldf@benm-laptop> <6E03D553-6499-403E-B38A-6233A9DF6A9F@nlnetlabs.nl> In-Reply-To: <6E03D553-6499-403E-B38A-6233A9DF6A9F@nlnetlabs.nl> 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 , jgs@juniper.net, sidr@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e835db05e6d09878" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] [Sidrops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8416 (7080) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org 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 --000000000000e835db05e6d09878 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 migh= t > 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. Perha= ps > 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: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/yGj8xJh9h-krcJXtW-xuTBeSnf4/ 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 =E2=80=9Cout-of-spec=E2=80=9D, if the errata is approved? Kind regards, Job --000000000000e835db05e6d09878 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 at 10:29, Ti= m Bruijnzeels <tim@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
Hi Warren, all,

I (co-author) agree that this wa= s an oversight. I have no objections to the change.

However.. I have= n't checked, but beware that current implementations might fail to pars= e the file if a "comment" member is added here, if they are (over= ly) strict. I expect that most will simply ignore this member. Perhaps it&#= 39;s wise that this is verified before finalising the errata.
<= div dir=3D"auto">
A similar= concern was expressed (in opposition of) tidying up a missing constraint i= n ROA EE certificates:=C2=A0

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 c= ode going to fall over - if the errata is approved?
3) have there been ROAs / SLURM files in the obser= vable universe which would suddenly be =E2=80=9Cout-of-spec=E2=80=9D, if th= e errata is approved?

Kind regards,

Job
--000000000000e835db05e6d09878--