Re: [Sidrops] trying to limit RP processing variability

Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@nlnetlabs.nl> Wed, 15 April 2020 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@nlnetlabs.nl>
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 0C3763A09C5 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
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 Q3EekSRvYSXr for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (dicht.nlnetlabs.nl [185.49.140.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B32DB3A0522 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:981:4b52:1:dcf6:6c4a:3407:9446] (unknown [IPv6:2001:981:4b52:1:dcf6:6c4a:3407:9446]) by dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29FE21B997; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 16:56:09 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=nlnetlabs.nl
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=tim@nlnetlabs.nl
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1586962569; bh=TVEiSw2MmGAQ1QRxMI3hLjPhxAssHXVhG+n0sfCEroc=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=KIktLu0TahDUHe7SdTxfnb4e4fBVTw51/ZGmxBzBqnvmHSCa1GwfpLchYdvPHR6J1 D1nPEIeeyHrk5Y+P0F/BZ/M36cURdBi/MQHYi3HesuI3miRmq7paKEG4YKcAnTkchA iXz9oLD7tx8yTTM2MQF/v55y8sYhxfstiSA/15j4=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.60.0.2.5\))
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@nlnetlabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <20200415161415.29c49f4e@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 16:56:08 +0200
Cc: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Stephen Kent <stkent=40verizon.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "sidrops@ietf.org" <sidrops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FD178DB1-31E8-41DC-B638-2740952011EE@nlnetlabs.nl>
References: <a9448e54-320f-300c-d4f9-d01aca2b6ef4.ref@verizon.net> <a9448e54-320f-300c-d4f9-d01aca2b6ef4@verizon.net> <20200415150141.016d021d@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl> <20200415140012.GB30412@vurt.meerval.net> <20200415161415.29c49f4e@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
To: Martin Hoffmann <martin@opennetlabs.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.60.0.2.5)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/JFcqO8UMaSJblfXZWpHSZOlYuUM>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] trying to limit RP processing variability
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: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 14:56:13 -0000


> On 15 Apr 2020, at 16:14, Martin Hoffmann <martin@opennetlabs.com> wrote:
> 
> Job Snijders wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 03:01:41PM +0200, Martin Hoffmann wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 1.Manifest present, valid, current  
>>> 
>>> If there is a present, valid, and current manifest, the CRL can
>>> safely be ignored for all objects.  
>> 
>> I'd like to ask you for some clarification, Stephen Kent listed 4
>> different cases, I parapharsed here:
>> 
>> 1.1. Manifest present, valid, current AND CRL present, valid, current
>> 1.2. Manifest present, valid, current AND CRL present, stale
>> 1.3. Manifest present, valid, current AND CRL present, invalid
>> 1.4. Manifest present, valid, current AND CRL missing
>> 
>> When you say "can safely be ignored", do you mean, MAY be ignored,
>> SHOULD be ignored? or MUST be ignored? In all four cases?
> 
> In all cases. Since it is ignored, it doesn’t really matter whether it
> is good or bad or ugly. 
> 
> I suppose I would go with "SHOULD be ignored" here.
> 
>>> In order to avoid using partial sets of information, the entire
>>> content of the PP is ignored if any object is missing, corrupted, or
>>> invalid.  
>> 
>> It appears we are inching towards consensus on avoiding to use partial
>> sets, I think that's good news.
> 
> Keep in mind that there is still a possibility that partial sets are
> created if a resource is delegated to two separate entities and one of
> them goes kaputt. I have no idea how likely that is in practice. This
> rule should, however, cover the rather more likely case of partial sets
> because of partial breakage of a single publication point.

A practical approach here could be to add all resources on the issuing CA certificate for this publication point to a SLURM like ignore filter.

This way one can be sure that one does not generate RPKI invalid *announcements* because of missing information.

Kind regards,
Tim


> 
> Kind regards,
> Martin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> Sidrops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops