From nobody Mon Aug 22 19:58:19 2022 Return-Path: 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 52925C14CE33; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 19:58:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.905 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NTF2aH6SEdiZ; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 19:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from out20-38.mail.aliyun.com (out20-38.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.20.38]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46F56C14CE42; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 19:58:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=CONTINUE; BC=0.06823001|-1; CH=green; DM=|CONTINUE|false|; DS=CONTINUE|ham_system_inform|0.0426703-0.00627277-0.951057; FP=0|0|0|0|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=ay29a033018047212; MF=madi@rpstir.net; NM=1; PH=DS; RN=11; RT=11; SR=0; TI=SMTPD_---.OzXn0f3_1661223486; Received: from smtpclient.apple(mailfrom:madi@rpstir.net fp:SMTPD_---.OzXn0f3_1661223486) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Tue, 23 Aug 2022 10:58:07 +0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\)) From: Di Ma In-Reply-To: <63DB38A9-D503-4566-92F3-21D8A3FA3D68@ripe.net> Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 10:58:06 +0800 Cc: Tim Bruijnzeels , Warren Kumari , Ben Maddison , RFC Errata System , sidr@ietf.org, SIDR Operations WG , Chris Morrow , andrew-ietf@liquid.tech, jgs@juniper.net, david@mandelberg.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1251E19B-AAAA-48BB-9C76-F76E0AA7176C@rpstir.net> References: <20220810210643.1A9504C29D@rfcpa.amsl.com> <20220810212520.ateioe73xzawcldf@benm-laptop> <6E03D553-6499-403E-B38A-6233A9DF6A9F@nlnetlabs.nl> <63DB38A9-D503-4566-92F3-21D8A3FA3D68@ripe.net> To: Ties de Kock X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] [Sidrops] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8416 (7080) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 02:58:17 -0000 I have got no objection to this erratum as the co author of RFC8416. = Thanks go to Ben for catching this.=20 And this update will not affect RPSTIR2 as we check it. Anyway, I think this discussion will help to update SLURM in support of = ASPA in next version as Tim mentioned. Di > 2022=E5=B9=B48=E6=9C=8822=E6=97=A5 16:47=EF=BC=8CTies de Kock = =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A >=20 > Hi Tim, all, >=20 >> On 22 Aug 2022, at 10:29, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: >>=20 >> Hi Warren, all, >>=20 >> I (co-author) agree that this was an oversight. I have no objections = to the change. >>=20 >> However.. I haven't checked, but beware that current implementations = might fail to parse the file if a "comment" member is added here, if = they are (overly) strict. I expect that most will simply ignore this = member. Perhaps it's wise that this is verified before finalising the = errata. >=20 > I checked two implementations. The (archived) RIPE NCC validator = accepts a > comment field in bgpsecAssertions. StayRTR does not parse the = bgpsecAssertions > structure and I expect it to ignore additional attributes. >=20 > However, if there are any compliant implementations, following section = 3.1, > they would not accept a file that incorporates that follows the change = proposed > in this erratum: >=20 > > ... An RP MUST consider any deviations from the specifications to > > be errors. >=20 > I think we need to keep this in mind when discussing this erratum. >=20 > Kind regards, > Ties >>=20 >> Tim >>=20 >>> On 21 Aug 2022, at 17:57, Warren Kumari wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Dear SIDROPS, at al, >>>=20 >>> I believe that this Errata is correct, and I intends to mark it = Verified unless I hear a clear objection by this Friday (August 26th). >>>=20 >>> W >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 5:25 PM, Ben Maddison = wrote: >>> Adding sidrops@ >>>=20 >>> On 08/10, RFC Errata System wrote: >>>=20 >>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8416,=20 >>> "Simplified Local Internet Number Resource Management with the RPKI = (SLURM)". >>>=20 >>> --------------------------------------=20 >>> You may review the report below and at:=20 >>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7080 >>>=20 >>> --------------------------------------=20 >>> Type: Technical=20 >>> Reported by: Ben Maddison >>>=20 >>> Section: 3.4.2 >>>=20 >>> Original Text=20 >>> -------------=20 >>> The above is expressed as a value of the "bgpsecAssertions" member, = as an array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain one each = of all of the following members: >>>=20 >>> o An "asn" member, whose value is a number. >>>=20 >>> o An "SKI" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding without = trailing '=3D' (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the certificate's Subject Key = Identifier as described in Section 4.8.2 of [RFC6487] (This is the value = of the ASN.1 OCTET STRING without the ASN.1 tag or length fields.) >>>=20 >>> o A "routerPublicKey" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding = without trailing '=3D' (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the equivalent to the = subjectPublicKeyInfo value of the router certificate's public key, as = described in [RFC8208]. This is the full ASN.1 DER encoding of the = subjectPublicKeyInfo, including the ASN.1 tag and length values of the = subjectPublicKeyInfo SEQUENCE. >>>=20 >>> Corrected Text=20 >>> --------------=20 >>> The above is expressed as a value of the "bgpsecAssertions" member, = as an array of zero or more objects. Each object MUST contain one each = of all of the following members: >>>=20 >>> o An "asn" member, whose value is a number. >>>=20 >>> o An "SKI" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding without = trailing '=3D' (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the certificate's Subject Key = Identifier as described in Section 4.8.2 of [RFC6487] (This is the value = of the ASN.1 OCTET STRING without the ASN.1 tag or length fields.) >>>=20 >>> o A "routerPublicKey" member, whose value is the Base64 encoding = without trailing '=3D' (Section 5 of [RFC4648]) of the equivalent to the = subjectPublicKeyInfo value of the router certificate's public key, as = described in [RFC8208]. This is the full ASN.1 DER encoding of the = subjectPublicKeyInfo, including the ASN.1 tag and length values of the = subjectPublicKeyInfo SEQUENCE. >>>=20 >>> In addition, each object MAY contain one optional "comment" member, = whose value is a string. >>>=20 >>> Notes=20 >>> -----=20 >>> The "comment" member is allowed to appear in every other structure = defined by the document, and was clearly intended to be allowed here = too, since it appears in the examples presented in sections 3.4.2 and = 3.5 >>>=20 >>> Instructions:=20 >>> -------------=20 >>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please = use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. = When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the = status and edit the report, if necessary. >>>=20 >>> --------------------------------------=20 >>> RFC8416 (draft-ietf-sidr-slurm-08)=20 >>> --------------------------------------=20 >>> Title : Simplified Local Internet Number Resource Management with = the RPKI (SLURM) Publication Date : August 2018=20 >>> Author(s) : D. Ma, D. Mandelberg, T. Bruijnzeels Category : PROPOSED = STANDARD=20 >>> Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing=20 >>> Area : Routing=20 >>> Stream : IETF=20 >>> Verifying Party : IESG >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________=20 >>> sidr mailing list=20 >>> sidr@ietf.org=20 >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sidr mailing list >>> sidr@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> sidr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Sidrops mailing list > Sidrops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops