Re: [Sidrops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-06.txt

[Ben Maddison <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tim,

On 10/01, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I saw this:
> 
> > On 30 Sep 2021, at 23:11, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> >      version        [0] INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
> 
> This is how it was done, and also what the e.g. the ROA profile uses.
> 
> However, reading the ASPA profile I came across another way, like:
> 
>      version        [0] VERSION DEFAULT v0,
> 
>      VERSION ::= INTEGER { v0(0) }
> 
> 
> This does not change the profile really afaik, but I believe this
> explicitly limits the available options of 'version' to just 'v0',
> i.e. an INTEGER with value 0. So, this may be a bit better in that
> regard.
> 
The DER encoding would be unchanged using either definition.

The primary difference is that any future change that required a version
bump, but otherwise left the object structure unchanged, would have to
publish an updated module.

Similarly, an implementation strictly adhering to your version would be
unable to process an object with a updated version number.

It's hard to think of a change to the manifest spec that wouldn't end up
touching the ASN.1 definition somehow, so in this context the above is
probably moot.

Cheers,

Ben