IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] is a longer announce invalid or not found?

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Mon, 03 October 2011 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.com>
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 F1A1821F8CEA for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.607
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67nHExMiH1ER for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DAC621F8CE6 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 11:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp89-089-239.bbn.com ([128.89.89.239]:49156) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.74 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1RAmsR-000NnC-6c; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:04:31 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240802caafa5dee9ad@[128.89.89.239]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.64.1109301651080.3100@SMURPHY-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
References: <m2d3eilpnq.wl%randy@psg.com> <20110930101754.GB10004@juniper.net> <m2ehyytj2l.wl%randy@psg.com> <20110930122831.GA10176@juniper.net> <m2bou2t7x5.wl%randy@psg.com> <3B65FD95-2E66-4D1F-B630-976ECE99050A@ericsson.com> <m2sjndsrs5.wl%randy@psg.com> <7309FCBCAE981B43ABBE69B31C8D213914A3308B30@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se > <m2mxdlsqzu.wl%randy@psg.com> <m2ipo9sqlg.wl%randy@psg.com> <Pine.WNT.4.64.1109301651080.3100@SMURPHY-LT.columbia.ads.sparta.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 14:04:27 -0400
To: Sandra Murphy <Sandra.Murphy@sparta.com>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] is a longer announce invalid or not found?
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:01:32 -0000

At 4:56 PM -0400 9/30/11, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>S...
>
>I await correction in quoting Steve.
>
>--Sandy, speaking as regular ol' member

you are correct.  All good cert request protocols require PoP, as you
noted. But it's not too hard to send the public key and a signed blob.
We currently are working on a new PKIX standard, EST, that is intended to
offer a simpler enrollment protocol that the other 2 PKIX standards. It
might be a good choice for the BGPSEC context. The principle doc author
is Max Pritkin at Cisco.

Steve

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email