Re: [sidr] wglc draft-ietf-sidr-policy-qualifiers-00

[Andy Newton <[e-mail]>]

This sounds fine to me, though it is really an interoperability
considerations section thingy. The IETF does those now, right? :)

-andy

On 7/16/13 4:55 AM, "Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Thanks Andy.
>
>Do you think we need to add something in the security section about the
>transition?
>
>Something like:
>
>"A RP that performs a strick validation based on RFC6487 and fails to
>support the updates described in this document, would incorrectly
>invalidate RPKI signed objects that implements the changes in Section 2.
>At the time of this writing, all known RP software suites (you can
>mention them as in IDR) were tested and supported the updates on this
>document" 
>
>Roque
>
>On Jul 15, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Andy Newton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 7/15/13 10:22 AM, "Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)" <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Before sending my support to advance to the IESG, I wanted to ask the
>>> author if they have tested the effects of this change on existing RP
>>> tools. Do they really set the certificate as invalid?
>> 
>> Yes, we have tested against the three RP suites. One did not require a
>> change while the other two required simple one line changes. Current
>> releases of all three now accommodate it.
>> 
>> -andy
>> 
>
>