Re: [Sidrops] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 01:56:26PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 02:44:02PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
> Thanks for the updates and explanation of the context.
> 
> I just wanted to check: the -10 still contains in §4.4 this text:
> 
>    Note: Although it is RECOMMENDED that the thisUpdate and nextUpdate
>    fields in the manifest match the corresponding fields in the CRL
>    associated with the manifest, RPs SHOULD NOT reject a manifest if
>    these fields do not match.
> 
> Does that pose a potential for interop failure that we should be concerned
> about?

I think you are correct observing this discrepancy. The following is
perhaps better:

NEW:
    """
    Note: Although the thisUpdate and nextUpdate fields in the Manifest
    eContent MUST match the corresponding fields in the CRL associated
    with the Manifest, RPs MUST NOT reject a manifest solely because
    these fields are not identical.
    """

The above description should provide clear guidance to both CAs and RPs
on where we are / we're heading, without needlessly cutting off some
existing deployments [1]. 

Thanks for catching this, if this aligns with your understanding -11 can
be uploaded.

Kind regards,

Job

[1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/VNG77j05I2JXOwv4qkSy-DCgRNE/