Re: [Sidrops] WG-ADOPTION: draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01 - ENDS: 2019-03-12 (mar 12)

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 27 February 2019 22:09 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
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 1E1491292F1 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:09:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ngxENJJZifNY for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:09:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B99C1288BD for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 14:09:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F47300A42 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:50:59 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id iD7teWQXXnzU for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:50:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (unknown [138.88.156.37]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85F71300460; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:50:58 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190227215142.GB21642@pfrc.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:09:14 -0500
Cc: sidrops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3EF81391-A613-4F10-B636-E29ABB5643DA@vigilsec.com>
References: <m2fts968ei.wl-randy@psg.com> <BD686FC4-58B7-48FC-85EC-EEC5C2F30B53@vigilsec.com> <20190227215142.GB21642@pfrc.org>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/L5bJoNeO06DcnOTOKHvOyOQxK7o>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] WG-ADOPTION: draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01 - ENDS: 2019-03-12 (mar 12)
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, 27 Feb 2019 22:09:19 -0000

Jeff:

>> This seems to be a proposal for documenting why the marking is something other that valid or invalid.  I can see why a researcher might care about those differences, but I cannot see how an operator would make use of it.  I do not think we should add complexity.
> 
> I likely should write more text, but very simply some operators want easy
> ways to mark that a system that should be expected to do validation has not
> done so.  The existing tri-state (valid, invalid, not-found) doesn't cover
> this.

Please write a little bit more.  What action would be taken in the unverified state that is different from the action taken in the not-found state?

Russ