Re: [Sidrops] rev 4 (corrected CRLDP source changes, thanks to Tim)

[Martin Hoffmann <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Kent wrote:
> 
> I think we all agree that the revised Section 6 text needs to 
> accommodate the possibility that a manifest will list more than one
> CRL, even though this OUGHT NOT happen (see RFC 6919). The only
> question?? is how hard do we require an RP to work if it encounters
> more than one CRL. I prefer a simple approach to selecting one, and a
> mandatory warning. Rob has offered a more sophisticated, and complex
> approach, based on his working RP code.

I would prefer a simple solution. Either that multiple CRLs make the
manifest invalid or as long as a CRL is listed on a manifest and the
manifest hash as well as its signatures and times check out, it can be
referenced and used. The latter is what Routinator does now.

Kind regards,
Martin