Re: [Sidrops] proposed, revised text for Section 6

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

jay,
> Stephen Kent writes:
>   > These are all valid questions. The WG needs to decide if per-RP
>   > variance, based on fetch timing, local cache failure, etc. meets the
>   > goal of uniform RP processing of RPKI data. I am agnostic on this point.
>   >
>
> Recently I had attempted to gauge if there was WG consensus along
> these lines:
>
>     Each validation run of each RP MUST generate the same set of
>     Validated ROA Payloads (VRPs) when presented with identical input,
>     using unexpired records from the most recent successful retrieval
>     to deal only with complete failure to retrieve from a PP.
>
> Now I have come around to agree with Job's perspective that coarse
> behavior like 'rsync --delete' is not what RPs should do.
>
> An RP should not assume that objects missing in any PP retrieval are
> the fault of the responsible CA.  The objects could be missing due to
> fault of the CA, problems reaching the PP, or other potential causes,
> and the RP cannot know which one it was.  If the RP's cached objects
> can fill in the gaps, that's great.
I am revising the text to mandate use of an RP's cache to fill in for 
missing or damaged files.
> Thus I now feel the straw proposal I offered above is too restrictive.
> I would still want different RP implementations to be 'deterministic'
> such that they produce the same VRPs, but only when operating on an
> identical local cache (including an empty cache as one important case).

OK.

Steve