Re: [sidr] draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct to Standards Track

Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net> Mon, 18 July 2011 11:39 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@ripe.net>
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 74FA821F8BA2 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 04:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kg7QyIjxaDiF for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 04:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1342]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B76F21F8B92 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 04:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dodo.ripe.net ([193.0.23.4]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1QimAF-0006Xq-QL; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:39:10 +0200
Received: from timbru.vpn.ripe.net ([193.0.21.62]) by dodo.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1QimAF-0000pV-Ex; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:39:07 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110717145323.6460631BDB0@minas-ithil.hactrn.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:39:06 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1134F1F2-0964-4B85-A1EB-5B7A5B604C5B@ripe.net>
References: <4E209AC9.5040808@cisco.com> <20110717145323.6460631BDB0@minas-ithil.hactrn.net>
To: Rob Austein <sra@isc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ----
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -4.0 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.1 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000]
X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a07198b1bedbe17afcc2444342e24c5d8fa8c
Cc: draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct@tools.ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org, sidr-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct to Standards Track
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:39:13 -0000

Hi,

On Jul 17, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Rob Austein wrote:
> This draft defines the mappings from filename extension (.cer, .roa,
> .crl, etc) to ASN.1 object type (X.509 certificate, ROA, CRL, etc).
> 
> Without this mapping, relying party tools have no way of knowing what
> they're looking at in most cases, and would have to attempt to decode
> every object in various ways to see which (if any) worked.  This would
> be tedious, error prone, and generally a bad idea.
> 
> For this reason, I think the document that defines the filename
> mappings should be Standards Track; at present, that's this document,
> so I agree with the change of track.

+1

I agree that not having this mapping is tedious and error prone for RPs.

Example:
- ROA that isn't strictly standard compliant / validator has bug in ROA recognition

Validator tries to parse as roa, cer, crl, mft; then gives up...

This is not only ugly code to maintain, it also makes it difficult to debug problems. The happy flow case, while cumbersome, is not the biggest problem here I think..

How do we work out, in this example, what caused the actual problem? From the software side it's rather involved to build something like: this looks 99% like I ROA, one I don't understand, but it's probably what they meant or something like that... so our tool just says: I don't understand this *object*.

If we do have the mapping the validator can give a far more informed error message. For starters it can say: "I don't understand this *ROA*.". But also, since it knows it should be a ROA it can report why it rejected it as a ROA. If we had no clues about the intent we would also have to tell the users why we rejected it as any other object.. The less noise we produce here the easier it will be for RPs and publishers to work out where the real problem is and fix it.

Whether this mapping strictly needs to be in this draft may be another question.


Regards,


Tim Bruijnzeels

Implementing stuff @RIPE NCC