Re: [Sidrops] trying to limit RP processing variability

Martin Hoffmann <martin@opennetlabs.com> Wed, 15 April 2020 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <martin@opennetlabs.com>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464653A08BB for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 8g-pfi8xt4oY for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (dicht.nlnetlabs.nl [185.49.140.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D79D3A08B7 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl (82-197-214-124.dsl.cambrium.nl [82.197.214.124]) by dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D9FCA1B87D; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 16:14:15 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=opennetlabs.com
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=martin@opennetlabs.com
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 16:14:15 +0200
From: Martin Hoffmann <martin@opennetlabs.com>
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>
Cc: Stephen Kent <stkent=40verizon.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "sidrops@ietf.org" <sidrops@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200415161415.29c49f4e@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <20200415140012.GB30412@vurt.meerval.net>
References: <a9448e54-320f-300c-d4f9-d01aca2b6ef4.ref@verizon.net> <a9448e54-320f-300c-d4f9-d01aca2b6ef4@verizon.net> <20200415150141.016d021d@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl> <20200415140012.GB30412@vurt.meerval.net>
Organization: Open Netlabs
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.5 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/1U5cQ3SpvY0whLO4RjavI-KmOIA>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] trying to limit RP processing variability
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 14:14:20 -0000

Job Snijders wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 03:01:41PM +0200, Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> >
> > > 1.Manifest present, valid, current  
> > 
> > If there is a present, valid, and current manifest, the CRL can
> > safely be ignored for all objects.  
> 
> I'd like to ask you for some clarification, Stephen Kent listed 4
> different cases, I parapharsed here:
> 
> 1.1. Manifest present, valid, current AND CRL present, valid, current
> 1.2. Manifest present, valid, current AND CRL present, stale
> 1.3. Manifest present, valid, current AND CRL present, invalid
> 1.4. Manifest present, valid, current AND CRL missing
> 
> When you say "can safely be ignored", do you mean, MAY be ignored,
> SHOULD be ignored? or MUST be ignored? In all four cases?

In all cases. Since it is ignored, it doesn’t really matter whether it
is good or bad or ugly. 

I suppose I would go with "SHOULD be ignored" here.

> > In order to avoid using partial sets of information, the entire
> > content of the PP is ignored if any object is missing, corrupted, or
> > invalid.  
> 
> It appears we are inching towards consensus on avoiding to use partial
> sets, I think that's good news.

Keep in mind that there is still a possibility that partial sets are
created if a resource is delegated to two separate entities and one of
them goes kaputt. I have no idea how likely that is in practice. This
rule should, however, cover the rather more likely case of partial sets
because of partial breakage of a single publication point.

Kind regards,
Martin