IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-10.txt> (Securing RPSL Objects with RPKI Signatures) to Proposed Standard

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Thu, 12 May 2016 11:22 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 D2AB812D950 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UzEIbYeCrPr5 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80F5612D948 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 May 2016 04:22:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1b0oha-0006ol-EG; Thu, 12 May 2016 11:22:46 +0000
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 13:22:45 +0200
Message-ID: <m24ma3ed16.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
In-Reply-To: <57336455.1040508@innovationslab.net>
References: <20160425184508.30206.46648.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20160428225451.GE123284@main> <57332EDB.9090609@innovationslab.net> <m2shxoeeby.wl%randy@psg.com> <57336455.1040508@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/dmndmQEfBxf_mMEIY6SgUy6VT_I>
Cc: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidr-rpsl-sig-10.txt> (Securing RPSL Objects with RPKI Signatures) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:22:50 -0000

>>> I agree that the original text allowing multiple signatures supports
>>> the case where the components of the primary key of the object (i.e.,
>>> prefix+ASN) come from different resource holders. I will restore that
>>> text.
>> 
>> this is gonna be really simple; no complications at all i am sure.
>> 
>> btw, was this a consensus of the wg?
> 
> The original draft supported multiple signature attributes. During WG
> review (WGLC?, don't recall), several people suggested simplifying the
> approach by only allowing one signature attribute. Given the route[6]
> example, we need multiple signatures modulo the proposed text to clarify
> the handling/generation of those signatures.

i.e. it was not wg consensus but you think you should do it anyway?

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email