Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Mon, 11 May 2020 11:17 UTC
Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 E88693A08E1 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 04:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 flFlxpt1uQEv for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2020 04:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 310DD3A087B for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2020 04:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1jY6Qx-0000xd-KC for sidrops@ietf.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 11:17:19 +0000
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 04:17:16 -0700
Message-ID: <m2y2py3emb.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200511125957.09b5f5e5@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl> <m2zhae3hrh.wl-randy@psg.com>
References: <m2mu6f42ji.wl-randy@psg.com> <B23AED42-5983-4E14-897A-03A51FCDDC42@nlnetlabs.nl> <m2zhae3hrh.wl-randy@psg.com> <20200511123331.5c2d604a@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl> <73D1F29B-7F54-4022-975C-477B3A9E7CC5@psg.com> <20200511125957.09b5f5e5@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/p5v0fGfagEDHXkhV_DjGRZ13L_o>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync
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: Mon, 11 May 2020 11:17:28 -0000
turning a private discussion public, with consent of course it turns out that, to quote tim > Routinator has had support for RRDP since version 0.6.0, released in > September 2019. > > If it finds an RRDP SIA and successfully synchronizes the publication > point once, it will whitelist the RRDP SIA URI and it will no longer > fall back to rsync where this URI occurs on CA certificates. As long > as the synchronization has not been successful it will fall back to > rsync. to which i then said > that seem a potential violation of spec. if the PP RRDP service then > fails, it really MUST fall back to the mandatory to implement rsync. > >> As long as the synchronization has not been successful it will fall >> back to rsync. > > s/As long as/If/ to which martin said > Can you point me to where it says that? Section 3.4.5 of RFC 8182 is > pretty indifferent about it. to which i said > among other places, 6481 s3 > > * The publication repository MUST be available using rsync > [RFC5781] [RSYNC]. Support of additional retrieval mechanisms > is the choice of the repository operator. The supported > retrieval mechanisms MUST be consistent with the accessMethod > element value(s) specified in the SIA of the associated CA or > EE certificate. to which martin responded > This talks about what the publication point has to offer, not what a > cache has to use. In particular, it says that the publication point > musn’t advertise RRDP unless it actually offers RRDP. Which means that > as a cache I can rely on RRDP being available. > > Forcing a cache to use rsync instead of RRDP is a downgrade attack and > should be handled accordingly. at which point i said it is time to take this to the wg. so here we go. imiho, 6481 makes it very clear that rsync is currently the mandatory to implement protocol (yes i am a coauthor of a draft trying to eventially change that). i contend that this is MTI by both the publisher and by the client. randy
- Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync Randy Bush
- Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync Russ Housley
- Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync Randy Bush
- Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync George Michaelson
- Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync Martin Hoffmann
- Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync Martin Hoffmann
- Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync Stephen Kent
- Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync Russ Housley
- Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync Rob Austein
- Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync Martin Hoffmann