Re: [Sidrops] [WG ADOPTION] rfc-8211-bis - Ends 2020-28-08 (Aug 28 2020)
Di Ma <madi@rpstir.net> Wed, 26 August 2020 07:31 UTC
Return-Path: <madi@rpstir.net>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 025B93A0E83; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 00:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TVD_PH_BODY_ACCOUNTS_PRE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yu5blx0cxNY6; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 00:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out20-74.mail.aliyun.com (out20-74.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.20.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE0E83A0ED7; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 00:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=CONTINUE; BC=0.5350639|-1; CH=green; DM=|CONTINUE|false|; DS=CONTINUE|ham_system_inform|0.146335-0.00875556-0.84491; FP=0|0|0|0|0|-1|-1|-1; HT=e02c03293; MF=madi@rpstir.net; NM=1; PH=DS; RN=4; RT=4; SR=0; TI=SMTPD_---.IO5gsLt_1598427069;
Received: from 192.168.218.230(mailfrom:madi@rpstir.net fp:SMTPD_---.IO5gsLt_1598427069) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(10.147.43.230); Wed, 26 Aug 2020 15:31:10 +0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Di Ma <madi@rpstir.net>
In-Reply-To: <87tux9xgk6.wl-morrowc@ops-netman.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 15:31:09 +0800
Cc: sidrops@ietf.org, sidrops-chairs@ietf.org, sidrops-ads@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <98DB209F-7B10-447E-B531-D80B9B074604@rpstir.net>
References: <87tux9xgk6.wl-morrowc@ops-netman.net>
To: Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/jntGQuQytv9crcHJqLBjpV-Qlsg>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] [WG ADOPTION] rfc-8211-bis - Ends 2020-28-08 (Aug 28 2020)
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 07:31:23 -0000
I am in support of adoption of this work as the co-author of RFC 8211. Manifest is the fundamental signed object used by RFC 8211 to analyze adverse actions that could happen in the RPKI. We have no reason of not updating RFC 8211, provided that Manifest is being updated as WG item. I will once again take part in this effort on threat model for the RPKI. Di > 2020年8月12日 01:01，Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net> 写道： > > > Howdy WG Folks! > The authors of RFC8211 have prepared an update to their document: > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kent-sidrops-8211bis-00.txt > > The abstract being: > " This document analyzes actions by or against a Certification > Authority (CA) or an independent repository manager in the RPKI that > can adversely affect the Internet Number Resources (INRs) associated > with that CA or its subordinate CAs. The analysis is done from the > perspective of an affected INR holder. The analysis is based on > examination of the data items in the RPKI repository, as controlled > by a CA (or an independent repository manager) and fetched by Relying > Parties (RPs). The analysis does not purport to be comprehensive; it > does represent an orderly way to analyze a number of ways that errors > by or attacks against a CA or repository manager can affect the RPKI > and routing decisions based on RPKI data." > > the updates are meant to take into account the updated language in the > pending RFC6486-bis document. Let's have a read, decide if this should > be adopted by the WG for work/cleanup/refresh and have a decision back > to the list/authors as of 28/8/2020 - August 28 this year (2020). > > Thanks! > -chris > co-chair-persona > > _______________________________________________ > Sidrops mailing list > Sidrops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops >