Re: [sidr] RPKI validator testing summary

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 02 December 2011 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 423C721F9397 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 05:52:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NikHuxW1pwJO for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 05:52:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDDC921F9396 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2011 05:52:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1RWTXh-000HWE-7h; Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:52:45 +0000
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 22:53:10 +0900
Message-ID: <m21usnaxmh.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
In-Reply-To: <968DA738-0BB5-4D66-AA99-173664F60A2F@tcb.net>
References: <4ED64E04.7030408@bbn.com> <968DA738-0BB5-4D66-AA99-173664F60A2F@tcb.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: sidr wg <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] RPKI validator testing summary
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: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:52:51 -0000

> Is an expired object "completely invalid" or just "imperfect"?  Can
> you explain the difference?

the objects of concern here, namely mainifests and crls, do not expire,
they just go past their expected refresh date.

> In general, I agree with you that this needs to be codified before we
> proceed and I agree with Randy that "I see no reason to tolerate
> useless incorrectness"

are they uselessly incorrect.  if the manifest is past it's refresh
date, and names a cert C as expected at the pub point, and C is not
there, a conservative might suspect an attack which deleted C yet did
not have the private key needed to issue a new manifest.

> in a brand new security system expressly aimed at bringing integrity
> to the mix, integrity that is especially important in times of
> instability and uncertainty.

integrity is always good.  and times are always uncertain.

randy