Re: [Sidrops] trying to limit RP processing variability

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

If a ROA object can be removed and a manifest proves it has been
removed, and a CRL confirms it has not been revoked, the unknown
question is:

 * what was the semantic intent of the ROA?

If you have a previously acquired state of the ROA which meets the
manifest checksum/sig and its not in the current CRL *ITS NOT MISSING*
and you know its semantic intent. All is good. This is what
maintenance of local cached state of fetching achieves.

If you do NOT have a previously acquired state of the ROA, you cannot
know its semantic intent. Job showed me that this means a covering
aggregate ROA state which is superceded for a specific prefix can be
invalidly interpreted as applying to the more specific. Any more
specific. The semantic intent of unknown amounts of ROA covered space
defined at this level in the CA hierarchy cannot be stated
categorically because the missing ROA might modify any of them.

Therefore, the ROA states of this level of the hierarchy and children,
cannot be known categorically.

IFF (and the FF is important) you don't have a valid ROA state cached,
and you can detect from valid CRL and valid Manifest some ROA is
missing, you cannot know how it modifies the routing intent in the ROA
otherwise unaffected.

I think therefore, you have to stop processing. But the IFF part is,
if you do not have a valid prior-state fetch of the ROA. Just because
"its missing" is not sufficient. If the one you have before refetch
maches what the Manifest says is a signed state, you aren't missing
anything.

-G