[Sidrops] Re: WG Adoption call for draft-sriram-sidrops-spl-verification - ENDS 06/03/2024 (June 3 2024)

[Tim Bruijnzeels <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> On 28 May 2024, at 22:37, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sriram=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> However, is SPV the best mechanism to deal with this?
>> I think a better alternative would be an extension to the ROA 
>> mechanism. This extension will define a `conditional ROA'.
>> This conditional ROA will also contain the result of a hash function 
>> h(x) over some random x. You can use the conditional ROA in two ways:
>> 
>> - without the preimage x: such ROA will not make announcements for AS
>> 7 and 1.2.3/24 valid. However, it could be used to allow DSR , i.e., 
>> it would be considered for BAR-SAV filtering.
>> 
>> - with the preimage x, provided as a transitive BGP attribute or otherwise:
>> this turns the conditional ROA into regular ROA.
>> 
> 
> Your proposal involves modifying the ROA to add a new field. Perhaps it can be taken up in the future by the WG as new work.  I'll be happy to discuss its the pros and cons off-list.

I think discussion is good, but generally speaking I am not keen on changing the ROA format. We have a lot of deployment, CA implementations and UIs/APIs, RPs, best practices, documentation, etc.

I think new semantics are generally best done as separate, explicit, complementary types. This way it’s also clear that the signer explicitly opted in to making a statement - rather than going with an implicit default which is what we might end up with if we had a next version ROA with optional extra bits.

I support adopting SPL, my feeling is that some more discussion is needed before it’s done, but adopting it so we can have that discussion makes sense to me.

Tim