Re: [Sidrops] mft version field issue (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-05.txt)

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sun, 11 July 2021 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
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 21F443A1588 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 06:58:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 HNXr0lvSm_9m for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 06:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7F1C3A158B for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 06:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A92300BF7 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:58:47 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id fE1wWi-5QOsk for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:58:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64BB7300BD6; Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:58:42 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <YOn7jt+Vx7oM+cpc@snel>
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2021 09:58:41 -0400
Cc: SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C2593923-072B-464B-96AF-ADF823487B9F@vigilsec.com>
References: <YOnj0sIs8ecU7uCG@snel> <A848C6DC-C20D-4EFC-9D9B-B7D2A33E96AA@vigilsec.com> <YOn7jt+Vx7oM+cpc@snel>
To: Job Snijders <job=40fastly.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/lTQ3pTCfxe7nOWcZA9lpKmBGDtU>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] mft version field issue (Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis-05.txt)
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: Sun, 11 Jul 2021 13:58:53 -0000


> On Jul 10, 2021, at 3:57 PM, Job Snijders <job=40fastly.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 03:43:08PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
>> If you try to decode, and it fails, then the Version should tell you
>> what ASN.1 module was used by the originator in order to properly
>> decode it.  All of the RPKI-related CMS content types started with a
>> Version of zero.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> So when a RP decodes it and fails, the expectation is that the RP will
> immediately upgrade to a newer version of their RP software?
> 
> If a CA jumps to the new version 'too soon', the CA risks losing their
> ability to inject VRPs into the routing systems of the RPs.
> 
> At what point can a CA know or expect that sufficient RPs in the field
> are able to decode their objects if they choose to use the new version?

Job:

I do not envision immediate upgrade, but please think about the other case.  Most of the community has upgraded to version N, and a decode fails.  The version tells that this source is still using N-1, so the decode can be retried with the appropriate syntax.

Russ