Re: [Sidrops] what to do when the CRL is hosed?

[Martin Hoffmann <[e-mail]>]

Robert Kisteleki wrote:
> > However, this discussion is somewhat orthogonal to what RPs should
> > do in case they find issues with a MFT, CRL, or know that there are
> > objects that are missing. These problems exist regardless of the
> > transport.  
> I agree. Job pointed out a behavioural example from a tool, and we
> have evidence that the RP tools behave differently under different
> conditions. If, as Lukas wrote: "[I expect] all RP's to produce the
> same VRP sets, given the same input" is a desired goal, then we
> likely need a document specifying said behaviour.

Ideally, these would be a 6486-bis and 6487-bis with more detailed
instructions on validation. There’s already quite a number of
documents and it isn’t always clear which ones are important. I’d
prefer to have this in the document an implementer will definitely read.

I’ll be happy to help working on these bises.

Kind regards,
Martin