[sidr] rpki-tree-validation vs. madi-sidr-rp

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Tue, 28 June 2016 18:19 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 6DC8C12D0E4 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.627
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FSL_HELO_HOME=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id El1fodNhXqMU for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC95812D0CF for <sidr@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 11:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ssh.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:43138 helo=COMSEC.fios-router.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1bHxbq-000Bmr-UC for sidr@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:19:43 -0400
To: sidr <sidr@ietf.org>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Message-ID: <0891ea5b-6a68-581d-7f5c-0e6f71fe76d2@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:19:41 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/0VxoJYVVeCQBPyNenWv5T3Rwd30>
Subject: [sidr] rpki-tree-validation vs. madi-sidr-rp
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 18:19:45 -0000

Although I was not present at the BA SIDR meeting, I did participate 
remotely for one of the sessions. I recall the discussion of the I-D 
that tries to collect all of the RP requirements in one place, with 
cites to the sources of these requirements. It part, I recall folks at 
the mic arguing that this I-D was redundant relative to the existing WG 
document on tree validation. I don't think this is an accurate 
comparison of the two docs, although I agree that there is overlap 
between them.

RPKI tree validation describes how the RIPE RP software works. It 
includes references to 6 SIDR RFCs to explain why the software performs 
certain checks. The RP requirements doc cites 11 SIDR RFCs, plus the 
BGPsec (router cert) profile. Thus it appears that the requirements doc 
tries to address a wider set of RFCs relevant to RP requirements. More 
importantly, the requirements doc is generic, while the tree validation 
doc is expressly a description of one RP implementation. Thus it is an 
example of how that implementation tries to meet the RP requirements, 
not a general characterization of RP requirements.


Thus I think it appropriate to proceed with both docs.

Steve