Re: [sidr] Questions about draft-huston-rpki-validation-01

[Geoff Huston <[e-mail]>]

Hi Steve,

I appreciate the backlog of mail you are working from, as you note in your mail, but
I always think it useful to have carefully read a document before performing a critique. I'm sure
you would agree with that sentiment. I was therefore quite surprised to find you had said the
following:

> 2- A separate concern is that the candidate doc contains two separable cases: one relaxes
> path validation by not mandating that every subordinate cert contain only a subset
> of the resources in the parent cert. The other case introduces the notion of a join
> into the RPKI tree structure. This latter case was extensively criticized during the
> SIDR WG meeting, by a number of folks. I suggest that case not be part of a new WG
> doc at this time.


I would be grateful for the precise reference in the "candidate doc" you talk about
to the concept of a "join". I looked though draft-huston-rpki-validation-01.txt, and 
maybe I missed something incredibly obtuse and well buried in the whitespace, but I
couldn't find any such reference in this document. Are you perhaps performing a critique
of some other draft in this rather lengthy message and not in fact referring to 
draft-huston-rpki-validation-01.txt at all?

The description of the first case is also inappropriately informal - the alternative view
described in the draft is that a relying party can consider a certificate to be valid
with respect to only those resources that are contained in all certificates that form
the validation path. Perhaps the subtle difference in your description might be the
cause of your evident discomfort with what you believe is contained in this document.

I think a careful read of section 2 of this draft adequately addresses why your proposal for 
additional operational procedures in point 1 of your note seems to be well wide of addressing the issues
described in the draft. 

The assertion in point 3 that this is "not viable" I interpret as one opinion, most likely one held
by yourself. Obviously there are other opinions and perspectives on this matter, and this draft
describes such a different perspective and also includes the motivation behind it. I would recommend
that perhaps this conversation would benefit from such a careful reading of the draft in question.

regards,

Geoff