Re: [sidr] [Errata Verified] RFC8360 (5638)

Hi all,

The errata is correct, this is a copy paste error.

There should be no impact on implementation, other than that if the implementation follows the original text strictly it will not work for ASNs on a trust anchor certificate, and if it's changed to follow the corrected text it will work. Mea culpa, I blame my copy/paste skills and replaying short term memory and my intent in proof reading my own bit of text here.

Tim

> On 13 Feb 2019, at 22:36, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> wrote:
> 
> I’d be interested to hear from the implementer(s) of the validation-reconsidered RFC what impact there is in handling this change.
> 
> (I suspect little impact, if any, but it would be very good to hear it from the implementer(s).  Suspicions don’t count for much.)
> 
> —Sandy
> 
>> On Feb 13, 2019, at 2:41 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> 
>> The following errata report has been verified for RFC8360,
>> "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered". 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5638
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> Status: Verified
>> Type: Technical
>> 
>> Reported by: Alberto Leiva Popper <ydahhrk@gmail.com>
>> Date Reported: 2019-02-13
>> Verified by: Warren Kumari (Ops AD) (IESG)
>> 
>> Section: 4.2.4.4
>> 
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>  7.  Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below:
>> 
>>      *  If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in
>>         certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found
>>         in this extension.
>> 
>>      *  If the IP Address Delegation extension (...)
>> 
>>      *  If the IP Address Delegation extension (...)
>> 
>>      *  If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in
>>         certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found
>>         in this extension.
>> 
>>      *  If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...)
>> 
>>      *  If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...)
>> 
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>  7.  Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below:
>> 
>>      *  If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in
>>         certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found
>>         in this extension.
>> 
>>      *  If the IP Address Delegation extension (...)
>> 
>>      *  If the IP Address Delegation extension (...)
>> 
>>      *  If the AS Identifier Delegation extension is present in
>>         certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-AS to the resources found
>>         in this extension.
>> 
>>      *  If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...)
>> 
>>      *  If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...)
>> 
>> Notes
>> -----
>> There seems to be a copy-paste error.
>> 
>> There are two bullet points explaining the initialization of VRS-IP, and none explaining the initialization of VRS-AS.
>> 
>> All the evidence suggests that the two extensions (IP Address Delegation and AS Identifier Delegation) are meant to be handled similarly, so I believe that the last three bullet points are supposed to perfectly mirror the first three.
>> 
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC8360 (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-10)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered
>> Publication Date    : April 2018
>> Author(s)           : G. Huston, G. Michaelson, C. Martinez, T. Bruijnzeels, A. Newton, D. Shaw
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Secure Inter-Domain Routing
>> Area                : Routing
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sidr mailing list
>> sidr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr