Re: [sidr] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-12: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 5 Jan 2017, at 16:14, Randy Bush wrote:

>>> Sorry, I did not mean that stripping was suggested; the previous
>>>> phrase (non-normatively) recommends against stripping. My question
>>>> is, since the subject of the sentence is "signed paths" whether the
>>>> "MUST be signed" language means "MUST NOT strip the signature"
>>>> (which I suspect to be the case), or something else.
>>>
>>> how about
>>>
>>>    As the mildly stochastic timing of RPKI propagation may cause
>>>    version skew across routers, an AS Path which does not validate 
>>> at
>>>    router R0 might validate at R1.  Therefore, signed paths that are
>>>    Not Valid and yet propagated (because they are chosen as best
>>>    path) MUST NOT have signatures stripped and MUST be signed if 
>>> sent
>>>    to external BGPsec speakers.
>>>
>>> if not, use larger clue bat
>>
>> It's likely I have this particular bat by the wrong end.
>>
>> In the last sentence, does "MUST be signed" mean it must have a
>> signature (which would seem to make "MUST NOT strip" and "MUST be
>> signed" redundant), or does it mean the propagating router must add
>> it's own signature in addition to the existing one(s)?
>
> yes, it must preserve the signed path and add its own signature.

Thanks, that helps. Would it make the last sentence say something to the 
effect of "... and MUST additionally be signed by the propagating 
router."?

Ben.