Re: [Sidrops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-15.txt

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

Dear Martin,

On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:33:07PM +0200, Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> Job Snijders wrote:
> > The internet-draft changes is best viewed by comparing -13 and -15:
> > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-13&url2=draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-15
> > 
> > An example object is available here:
> > rsync://chloe.sobornost.net/rpki/RIPE-nljobsnijders/5m80fwYws_3FiFD7JiQjAqZ1RYQ.asa
> 
> I think that object as well as the example object in the draft are not
> actually correct according to the ASN.1 module definition in the draft.
> 
> The module is opened with
> 
> | DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=
> 
> and the version field is defined as
> 
> | version [0]   INTEGER DEFAULT 0,
> 
> This means the version should use an implicit tag whereas the objects
> use an explicit tag:
> 
> |    [0] (1 elem)
> |       INTEGER 1
> 
> (and implicit tag would be:
> 
> |    [0] (1 byte) 01
> 
> I _think_ this is an error in the module definitions. All X.509 and
> CMS modules seem to use explicit tags for their version fields.

I think you are right. Thank you for pointing this out!

This error has been with us since aspa-profile-08 (July 2022)

I fixed it: https://github.com/QratorLabs/ASPA/commit/8975d62a3d1809ae160503dd8d5cd1e8d225b5ca

> While we are at it, I would like to again raise the suggestion to not
> use a version 1 here but rather stick to 0 and use a different content
> type OID. The older and newer definitions are not compatible, so a new
> OID feels more appropriate than a version change.

I can see your argument, but I'm not sure there is clear consensus to
request a fresh content-type OID, and there are counter-arguments too.

In the past the ASPA profile definition has been updated without
cranking the version or content-type OID. Some argue we are in a phase
of 'experimentation' (since the internet-draft isn't published as RFC),
where some incompatibility with older revisions of the draft is to be
expected and of no concern.

I personally expect all the 'v0 ASPA' objects to disappear before the
end of the year, and this internet-draft is probably heading into RFC
editor in 2024.

I'd appreciate more feedback from the working group on this matter.

Kind regards,

Job