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

Declan Ma <> Thu, 30 June 2016 05:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9756112D9CF for <>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 22:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KT7AAaM1sCyT for <>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 22:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1755F12D9C6 for <>; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 22:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-TM-DID: e05ed950eee8fc20771b4dbf4ae8d59d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Declan Ma <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:09:02 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: sidr <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] rpki-tree-validation vs. madi-sidr-rp
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 05:13:37 -0000

Hi, all,

Speaking as the co-author of ‘Requirements for Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Relying Parties’,

In addition to the clarification made by Steve, I would like to deliver a clear message here that this draft is intended to make the RP requirements well framed, which are segmented with orthogonal functionalities in different sections.

As such, those ‘functional components’ could be crafted and distributed across the operational timeline of an RP software . 

We would appreciate your comments on this document.


> 在 2016年6月29日,02:19,Stephen Kent <> 写道:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list