Re: [Sidrops] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-has-no-identity-06: (with COMMENT)

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 08:51:11PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> >    The RPKI provides authorization to make assertions only regarding
> >    named IP address blocks, AS numbers, etc.
> > 
> > While the "etc" normally wouldn’t be concerning, in the context of
> > this document I think it is a little bit problematic, because you're
> > trying to be precise about what the RPKI can’t be used for, but “etc”
> > is the opposite of precise, and invites the reader to use their
> > imagination. Maybe replace with “and other INRs”?
> 
> i tried, but then there is ASPA.  and is it the nose of a camel carrying
> all sorts of non INR info?  [ yes, an ASPA contains AS numbers.  but it
> is really about their relationships. ]
> 
>     regarding Internet Number Resources (INRs), such as IP prefixes, AS
>     numbers, and data such as ASPA records.
> 
> > 2. Section 2 has
> > 
> >    PKI operations MUST NOT be performed with RPKI certificates other
> >    than exactly as described, and for the purposes described, in
> >    [RFC6480].  That is, RPKI-based credentials of INRs MUST NOT be
> >    used to authenticate real-world documents or transactions without
> >    some formal external authentication of the INR and the authority
> >    for the actually anonymous INR holder to authenticate the
> >    particular document or transaction.
> > 
> > First, this paragraph is followed by a near–duplicate after the page
> > break, except that one starts with “i.e.“. Probably a cut and paste
> > error or something like that.
> 
> sigh.  sorry.  and thanks.
> 
> > Second, The paragraph contradicts itself. The first sentence has a
> > nice clear MUST NOT. But the second sentence provides a “without some”
> > escape hatch. The implication of the second sentence is that if some
> > formal external authorization and authority exists, then the MUST NOT
> > doesn’t apply, rather like a SHOULD NOT/MAY. I realize that in the
> > following paragraph you say that it “seems superfluous” for someone to
> > avail themselves of the implied MAY, but still… which is it? The
> > conflicted nature of this paragraph makes me think you're trying to
> > thread some needle which I can't perceive -- but it sure would be
> > clearer if it stopped after the first sentence, or if the second
> > sentence were cut off after the word "transactions" (so, delete
> > starting from "without"). If you made either of those edits I guess
> > the "seems superfluous" paragraph wouldn't be needed any more either.
> 
>     That is, RPKI-based credentials of INRs MUST NOT be used to
>     authenticate real-world documents or transactions.  That might be
>     done with some formal external authentication of authority for an
>     otherwise anonymous INR holder to authenticate the particular
>     document or transaction.  Given such external, i.e. non-RPKI,
>     verification of authority, the use of RPKI-based credentials seems
>     superfluous.

That seems a pretty significant departure from the original text! I
object to deletion of the 'without' part of the sentence.

Randy, is this 'no-identity' document intended to obstruct publication
of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc ?

Kind regards,

Job