Re: [sidr] draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct to Standards Track

[Terry Manderson <[e-mail]>]

On 18/07/11 12:32 PM, "Stephen Kent" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> But wouldn't the CMS (and ASN.1 for that matter) effectively tell
>> the RP what the object was intended to be? It strikes me that the
>> file name extension is a bit of syntactic sugar rather than an
>> essential and necessary component, so I'm curious to understand what
>> has changed in this particular PKI that makes the filename extension
>> such a necessary attribute. If this is the case would a rogue CA be
>> able to mount an effective DOS attack for all RPs by deliberately
>> mis-naming objects?
> 
> If youy want to compare the RPKI to the general PKI repository model
> (X.500), note that in an X.500 directory, every object is tagged in a
> fashion analogous to the filename extension. LDAP tags objects as
> well. So why is it not appropriate to do so, in a normative fashion
> here?
> 

>From what little I know about LDAP/X.500 directories, the tagging is driven
from the DIT. Surely that is more analogous to the RPKI manifest than a
filename based extension. Or am I missing your point or some key
example/information?

I'm happy to see things tagged in a normative fashion, I just think putting
the eggs into the filename/directory basket as a standards action is
worrying.

Cheers
Terry