Re: [sidr] WGLC draft-sidr-rpki-rtr - take 2?

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Pradosh Mohapatra <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> not sure if mandating a single transport is needed at all.
>>
>> since the pros and cons of the various transport protocols
>> (TCP, TCP-MD5, TCP-AO, IPSec, SSH) are well understood, why not simply
>> enumerating the choices and leave it to the operator's local security policy
>> which one to deploy ?
>>
>> IMO you cannot dictate local security policy as they are different between
>> operators. also if the level of containment is sufficiently enough (e.g.
>> local-cache only reachable through vrf, not accessible through internet
>> it is perfectly reasonable even to load your cache records using vanilla TCP.)
>
> I have no problem listing various transports. I thought there was a suggestion to
> keep one of them mandatory to encourage better interoperability. That makes
> some sense.

I believe, and Randy/authors can jump in here, the point of a MUST was
to ensure we had one (at least) transport across all parts of the
system. (interoperability, yes).

How about authors/hannes/pradosh work out their best guess and we go
from there? say by monday? :)

-Chris