Re: [sidr] [Errata Verified] RFC8360 (5638)

Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> Wed, 13 February 2019 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <sandy@tislabs.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 EF88912F18C; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:37:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 M8Fs-suM2HtN; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:36:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EDFE128766; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:36:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382EA28B003B; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:36:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A921F804E; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:36:58 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190213194103.A1B3AB82674@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:36:57 -0500
Cc: Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>, ydahhrk@gmail.com, gih@apnic.net, George Michaelson <ggm@apnic.net>, "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlos@lacnic.net>, Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net>, andy@arin.net, daniel@afrinic.net, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <28B68FF3-EE99-43BA-9CF8-BF73A56F1640@tislabs.com>
References: <20190213194103.A1B3AB82674@rfc-editor.org>
To: sidr list <sidr@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/PwEc4sevpYDPKenJuT9sgrw_p4A>
Subject: Re: [sidr] [Errata Verified] RFC8360 (5638)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:37:01 -0000

I’d be interested to hear from the implementer(s) of the validation-reconsidered RFC what impact there is in handling this change.

(I suspect little impact, if any, but it would be very good to hear it from the implementer(s).  Suspicions don’t count for much.)

—Sandy

> On Feb 13, 2019, at 2:41 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been verified for RFC8360,
> "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered". 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5638
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Status: Verified
> Type: Technical
> 
> Reported by: Alberto Leiva Popper <ydahhrk@gmail.com>;
> Date Reported: 2019-02-13
> Verified by: Warren Kumari (Ops AD) (IESG)
> 
> Section: 4.2.4.4
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>   7.  Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below:
> 
>       *  If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in
>          certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found
>          in this extension.
> 
>       *  If the IP Address Delegation extension (...)
> 
>       *  If the IP Address Delegation extension (...)
> 
>       *  If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in
>          certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found
>          in this extension.
> 
>       *  If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...)
> 
>       *  If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...)
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>   7.  Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below:
> 
>       *  If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in
>          certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found
>          in this extension.
> 
>       *  If the IP Address Delegation extension (...)
> 
>       *  If the IP Address Delegation extension (...)
> 
>       *  If the AS Identifier Delegation extension is present in
>          certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-AS to the resources found
>          in this extension.
> 
>       *  If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...)
> 
>       *  If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...)
> 
> Notes
> -----
> There seems to be a copy-paste error.
> 
> There are two bullet points explaining the initialization of VRS-IP, and none explaining the initialization of VRS-AS.
> 
> All the evidence suggests that the two extensions (IP Address Delegation and AS Identifier Delegation) are meant to be handled similarly, so I believe that the last three bullet points are supposed to perfectly mirror the first three.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8360 (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-10)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered
> Publication Date    : April 2018
> Author(s)           : G. Huston, G. Michaelson, C. Martinez, T. Bruijnzeels, A. Newton, D. Shaw
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Secure Inter-Domain Routing
> Area                : Routing
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr