Re: [Sidrops] WG-ADOPTION: draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01 - ENDS: 2019-03-12 (mar 12)

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Wed, 27 February 2019 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
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 761111292F1 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:52:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Hs2BkfaKWYPj for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:52:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 436B81288BD for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 13:52:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 2DD581E2D8; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:51:43 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:51:42 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: sidrops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20190227215142.GB21642@pfrc.org>
References: <m2fts968ei.wl-randy@psg.com> <BD686FC4-58B7-48FC-85EC-EEC5C2F30B53@vigilsec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BD686FC4-58B7-48FC-85EC-EEC5C2F30B53@vigilsec.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/5AD0DHJl8sSQWtxOt8NNtFxc8D0>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] WG-ADOPTION: draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01 - ENDS: 2019-03-12 (mar 12)
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, 27 Feb 2019 21:52:38 -0000

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 02:27:46PM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
> This seems to be a proposal for documenting why the marking is something other that valid or invalid.  I can see why a researcher might care about those differences, but I cannot see how an operator would make use of it.  I do not think we should add complexity.

I likely should write more text, but very simply some operators want easy
ways to mark that a system that should be expected to do validation has not
done so.  The existing tri-state (valid, invalid, not-found) doesn't cover
this.


-- Jeff