Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-06

[Pradosh Mohapatra <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tim,


>> Prefix validate assumes full knowledge of all applicable ROAs (or other sources of information if they are used) and I believe this should be stated more strongly.
>> 
>> The security considerations section addresses the possibility of a malicious attacker tampering with the database that is used for validation. It does not address the possibility of a database becoming incomplete for other reasons.
> 
> This is the main point I wanted to make. I believe this can be easily addressed by just stating the requirement in this document. Perhaps something along these lines at the end of the first paragraph in the security consideration section:
> 
> "Additional or missing records resulting from retrieval and/or validation errors can lead to the same problems."
> 
> The following was just a discussion on how RPs can mitigate these problems. But.. perhaps this is better addressed in a separate BCP, or future work on specifications related to the repository and retrieval/validation by RPs.
> 
> If the WG can agree with this then I can support last call..


I do not agree this is a "security" issue. I am guessing you meant permanent/eventual inconsistencies between the local and global repositories (since transient inconsistencies will always be there). That kind of inconsistency is most certainly a (protocol) implementation error and has to be dealt with at that layer.

- Pradosh