Re: [Sidrops] [WGLC] draft-ietf-sidrops-rp - ENDS: Mar 7, 2019

Stephen Kent <stkent@verizon.net> Mon, 25 March 2019 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <stkent@verizon.net>
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 8D7F112042D for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 06:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=verizon.net
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 zbHm8uF0lvTq for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 06:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonic317-26.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com (sonic317-26.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com [74.6.129.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FA1812046B for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 06:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=verizon.net; s=a2048; t=1553519251; bh=2H22VoR0mbYgMAQE6pSehY9D+Z7ignwlfWQVBjp8yDE=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=sNmdHv9wJStV7O0u3wp7W+tmfXv9L9JH6pJw8H+eT8pwI9OzBbcxIXq/eed1bzGvNqf3szpqn+L4ClQAvDYHZ/6b61kA4QUUn3pAsjF14+t/VmYQaqtLPUxSJ7xyHWhJj+E3I4M2baZXZyC7xOvqHLk1YtlE8ifBHQHgQmKto9Au3LV4heFCJ0B250SwP8lWlO1GtmhTn+6pW4BEYiCu6smUHK3mm53obwmtlrwd24wqjcC5Se/C3ZVGc5xfQOIZk6UgW0I0RTRBc6wd6CtMFwijvJX5IuJV78eHTfcQbKHoPuWMZ8gyD7LCjN4aO3GBExKJSFlwEOsT0O6oCHTSbw==
X-YMail-OSG: 1dBB.QwVM1kYVGStnCdRncTBnKckdxZZY1j.ykx.D31tcEJBAQugHJGTyerjsDa byYW.3pmWOvtxQXhdGB4_onWPpBtMPiiBafSuS2k377PwUXWw2jK_RI1.sorDbooVDHBx51kltRG 9EPF5Hf3NdEYn2Nu0LayWgP1Q8XV_Hpg1bx6COzwQyQzsh9B7N3MxBdmWDpHAVbUpVOx4T5C1OvN 8B0oSlXJis_DFyJuApX_GMkc7h95TtGFhtpC0z8XSrf8hiYPVCCOnOv4TXu5Q6sowpaffDM4FlhR 9xhha39.SNapZDj8e.WiYXB8n_7ptuMDyP8FtXJrv9KhAGDvZ3bsNOqx0fmZ7lDuRiXaFSGJgypv Ju5qjXAC1AkXg.Riq1rveQyw2YcX1PmNs_.HeWcG8jDMcJWbdAl7neRITHp.PNfOEumPnnoNFsx9 _wT8lz5Wf1eHhf_fUXr7YxqH8Dw3B8Ps8tEMtiIf44NDc3LHI75PmERPm_akE3uUT8Ar9CFxru6t HKjSdz8lP71VN7jEhgQGPSde4ylggjx2vSlM7z3GnWbR954Ec9LQYjvZ6FoYR4KYSGLpW6wZu1pp jobLQEdacaHA7Lz3E8aqbx98q3BOQCStPLB8vZlkXpQX6WGKfCVgLQ_CW3.a7hUhjwVHxI2yJUTr RxMo5al2s8_WOqZHMuJiveRxcKkb9JmVVNNZzEAz8fxvEqBDeOsVvJJJKFTr086l77qp_WheYOAP bv5aKyCgoaujXm1IOfLLLzUoRsoyEdLjTXWXbCF..FOyVtiVpDb.9QTeg_tA3bgy439s.qv25L7H aDDQ7TarsCdhVE8MKdSWnnaLuZ.wEBmeP.OLczF7m0bOfQ38Dky40RLmUQ9QcCOWi7jxetVVma7n rVIcWLZtH8YKao4TlbyTEAHuv4AKe6FE2mCNrHb0MZC5NOFpEQGb5G.pkEtZjR5ksSB_UR_zwQKu wHUF7a8g_7Lde2eMW4SDvwZYd6eLlclRBWgtqAeQX4rZrKHSFaq2TSuYkOnMv709ABaQIzsOITaM R82luxDynWs9IcxjB2kD8fq6cPcmXhqD_kf97KqKDqXCRRrUKdedD5wnP1VQkUa5z9yuZV7zv9WM Q
Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic317.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 13:07:31 +0000
Received: from pool-71-184-117-160.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (EHLO iMac-Study.fios-router.home) ([71.184.117.160]) by smtp405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com (Oath Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID e57df9b4d1c364df576f1c172637270b for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 13:07:29 +0000 (UTC)
To: sidrops@ietf.org
References: <yj9ozhpt51ug.wl-morrowc@ops-netman.net> <E9997496-1709-4B79-9911-3E88CE8D7B1A@ripe.net> <760F2043-C7DD-4CAF-8BA0-027769BA90D7@rpstir.net>
From: Stephen Kent <stkent@verizon.net>
Message-ID: <b8921db9-2f8a-88ae-e617-088fdb91f87c@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:07:29 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <760F2043-C7DD-4CAF-8BA0-027769BA90D7@rpstir.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/EQvsqYz9l3IYUADm39C1jbqh6fc>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] [WGLC] draft-ietf-sidrops-rp - ENDS: Mar 7, 2019
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: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 13:07:38 -0000

Oleg & Di Ma,

Sorry I missed the use of normative language in my earlier review of 
this doc.
>
>>> 4.2.3.  Ghostbusters
>>>
>>>
>>>    The Ghostbusters Record is optional; a publication point in the RPKI
>>>    can have zero or more associated Ghostbuster Records.
>>
>> Since no other CMS object description in this document mentions object’s optionality, this sentence may be understood as that the Ghostbusters Record is the only type of object which is optional. This is not the case.
> We haven’t thought of this implication.
>
> Thanks for your consideration.
I believe that all of the other RPKI signed objects are intended as 
mandatory for applicable entities (e.g., TAs, CAs, or EEs).  There are 
some fields in those objects that are optional, but not the objects 
themselves. The GB object is purely optional, so the cited statement 
seems apporpriate.
> Since you and I can neither know how other RP software would behave in 
> terms of this issue.
> How about crossing out 'However, most RP software ignores such objects and this document recommends that this behavior be adopted uniformly.’

To avoid what might be construed as standards-like language, how about:

"... this document recommends that..." -> "... the authors of this document suggest that ..."

> You are touching the key point.
>
> We authors were bothered  by RFC 6486 which is squishy in how RPs would use Manifest, but find it hard to improve it.
>
> That’s why we tried to go into detail of this issue instead of just referring to Section 6 of RFC 6486 but leave TBD in early version.
>
> If the WG has no more better idea, we authors will consider to adjust this section regarding 'How to Make Use of Manifest Data’ .

As Di notes, the language in 6486 is thus very squishy, because it's 
hard to decide, in general, whether a hard-line approach to Mainfest 
info may be more helpful than harmful. I think a discussion of the pros 
and cons of using Manifest data can be useful, but it also must be 
carefully worded.

Steve