Re: [Sidrops] proposed, revised text for Section 6

[Jay Borkenhagen <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Kent writes:
 > These are all valid questions. The WG needs to decide if per-RP 
 > variance, based on fetch timing, local cache failure, etc. meets the 
 > goal of uniform RP processing of RPKI data. I am agnostic on this point.
 > 

Recently I had attempted to gauge if there was WG consensus along
these lines:

   Each validation run of each RP MUST generate the same set of
   Validated ROA Payloads (VRPs) when presented with identical input,
   using unexpired records from the most recent successful retrieval
   to deal only with complete failure to retrieve from a PP.

Now I have come around to agree with Job's perspective that coarse
behavior like 'rsync --delete' is not what RPs should do.

An RP should not assume that objects missing in any PP retrieval are
the fault of the responsible CA.  The objects could be missing due to
fault of the CA, problems reaching the PP, or other potential causes,
and the RP cannot know which one it was.  If the RP's cached objects
can fill in the gaps, that's great.

Thus I now feel the straw proposal I offered above is too restrictive.
I would still want different RP implementations to be 'deterministic'
such that they produce the same VRPs, but only when operating on an
identical local cache (including an empty cache as one important case).


Thanks.

						Jay B.