Re: [Sidrops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-deprecate-rsync-00.txt

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Tim:

>> I think that RFC 6487 should also be updated to adjust the RPKI certificate profile.
> 
> Can you please elaborate why?
> 
> My personal drive with this draft, despite its name perhaps, is to deprecate the *operational* dependency on rsync. In my opinion the rsync URIs can stay and serve as namespaces, even if the servers are not guaranteed to be available. Think XML name spaces. I don't think we need to forbid running rsyncd either.

For example, RFC 6487, Section 4.8.6 says:

   ... The preferred URI access mechanism is a single rsync
   URI ("rsync://") [RFC5781] that references a single inclusive CRL for
   each issuer.

   ... Other access form URIs MAY be used in addition to the
   rsync URI, representing alternate access mechanisms for this CRL.

There are similar words in Sections 4.8.7, 4.8.8.1, and 4.8.8.2.

It seem to me you are changing the "preferred" way to handle these, even if both are allowed for decades.

> 
>> In phase 1, several URLs in the certificate could offer rsync:// and rrdp://, and then in Phase 4 (not documented), the rsync:// can get dropped.
> 
> It may not be aesthetically pleasing, but removing the rsync URIs completely is a much, much bigger effort. Incomplete dump of pointers of what would be affected

I agree, and that it is why I called it Phase 4, which is beyond the scope of this document.

Russ