Re: [sidr] WG LC for draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-01

[Andrew Chi <[e-mail]>]

On 11/8/2010 7:10 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
> On 06/11/2010, at 7:11 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
>
>> The authors of draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-01 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-signed-object-01) have requested a working group last call.
>>
>> The chairs ask the working group to consider this draft and decide if it is worthy of publication.
>>
>> This draft has not been through a last call before and next week is the IETF week, so the last call will end on 26 November.
>>
>
> I had a question about this draft that I posted to the SIDR WG mailing list on the 8th October.
>
> ----------------
> I am a little confused in reading section 4 of this draft.
>
> The intro to this section states that:
>
>   "Each RPKI signed object MUST be defined in an Internet standards
>    track document based on this profile, by specifying the following
>    data elements and validation procedure:"
>
> My question is: Why is the Content-Type Attribute listed as a distinct
> data element that requires specification?
>
> The relevant text (item 3) states that:
>
>   "Content-Type Attribute:  The mandatory Content-Type Attribute
>    MUST have its attrValues field set to the same OID as
>    eContentType in item 1."
>
> So I understand that in writing a document that uses a RPKI signed object I
> have to define the eContentType, but I DO NOT need to also define the
> Content-Type Attribute. If this is the case then why is this data element
> listed in Section 4 of the draft as being a data element that MUST
> be separately specified in the specific object specification?
>
> regards,
>
>   Geoff
> -------------------
>
> I have not seen a response posted to the SIDR WG that responds to this question. Accordingly, as it stands I do not support this draft going forward until this question is resolved, as the draft as it stands is not internally consistent, imho.
>

Thanks for catching this, Geoff.  You are correct that since the 
eContentType OID MUST equal the Content-Type Attribute, a specific 
object specification only needs to specify one, not both.  That item 
will be removed.

-Andrew