Re: [Sidrops] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Job,

On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 02:44:02PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
> Dear Benjamin, others,
> 
> A new version has been uploaded - which addresses all IESG input, including
> the notion of a potential for interoperability as pointed out by Benjamin.
> 
> The new text brings the bis document back closer to the original RFC, and
> earlier versions of the bis draft. My perception is that most large scale
> operational stakeholders both on CA and RP side expect behaviour as
> outlined in -10:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-10.txt
> 
> Not everyone agrees fully, one author raised a concern:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/-fZC3suTFyGSe1tRhyFY5UOgAMw/
> 
> To which I responded as following:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/YhMOdHIW4ACR4wZVMvOMQW__Db4/

Thanks for the updates and explanation of the context.

I just wanted to check: the -10 still contains in §4.4 this text:

   Note: Although it is RECOMMENDED that the thisUpdate and nextUpdate
   fields in the manifest match the corresponding fields in the CRL
   associated with the manifest, RPs SHOULD NOT reject a manifest if
   these fields do not match.

Does that pose a potential for interop failure that we should be concerned
about?

Thanks,

Ben