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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:06:02PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
> 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.

This would certainly resolve my concern, yes.  I am not really in a
position to speak to whether it reflects current reality, though :)

Thanks,

Ben