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

For all of the reasons given here, I think that version=1 with the current OID is a good way forward.

Russ

> On Jun 29, 2023, at 6:14 AM, Ties de Kock <tdekock@ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
>> On 29 Jun 2023, at 11:58, Martin Hoffmann <martin@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
>> 
>> Job Snijders wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:33:07PM +0200, Martin Hoffmann wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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’d be okay with leaving the version at 0 and using the current OID as
>> well. The old-format objects will fail to be decoded either way, so it
>> doesn’t really make a difference in practice. Depending on how the
>> parser works, they may be rejected even before you get to the version
>> check, too.
> 
> A benefit of a separate version is a cleaner way to support both profiles. There
> is a nice natural experiment in this on how long it takes people to switch to
> compliant implementations.
> 
>> 
>> I’m a bit worried with having version 1 in a newly published
>> standard. It’ll be the only one that does that and it is very easy to
>> miss because it really is just a single digit in the text below the
>> grammar. Ask me how I know ...
> 
> We have a number of test cases by now. The objects I use for interop testing are
> currently in [0] (unfortunately the URL will not be stable after merging this).
> By now we have covered quite a few variations :)
> 
> A benefit of a separate version is a cleaner way to support both profiles. There
> is a nice natural experiment in this on how long it takes people to switch to
> compliant implementations of CAs.
> 
> https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/rpki-commons/tree/feature/aspa-profile-15/src/test/resources/interop/aspa
> 
> If we move back to version 0, let’s do that with a new OID…
> 
> As a repository operator we parse _all_ objects in repositories for some
> consistency checks, having multiple structures for the same version complicates
> things more.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Ties
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> Sidrops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops