IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-04.txt> (Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchor Locator) to Proposed Standard

Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> Mon, 03 August 2015 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <sandy@tislabs.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053021B30D6; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 13:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 GtrtmKVI97nh; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 13:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B400B1B30C1; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 13:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B175228B0041; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD1B1F8035; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E50274CF-4E2E-48E5-AE5F-3F2B4EA6C583"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150730155133.D18C719D848A@minas-ithil.hactrn.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 16:16:22 -0400
Message-Id: <19AFB4E0-C337-4E81-83C7-087F7E1CA4B9@tislabs.com>
References: <20150709134637.7120.70507.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <55A5E727.7020605@bbn.com> <55B97546.3060200@bbn.com> <20150730155133.D18C719D848A@minas-ithil.hactrn.net>
To: Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/kIIa4bPsovdfJwWX5_y4dZ29JWs>
Cc: sidr@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-04.txt> (Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Trust Anchor Locator) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 20:16:36 -0000

On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net> wrote:
> 
> I prefer Richard's option 2 (allow but do not require linebreaks),
> which is what RFC 6490 RP implementations had to support anyway.
> 

Richard’s option 2 allows insertion of line breaks in a TAL.

Should we add a “Relying parties MUST ignore line breaks/whitespace” as well?

Richard’s message agrees that everyone’s relying party code he’s looked at does that anyway.

—Sandy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email