Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync

Randy Bush <> Mon, 11 May 2020 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88693A08E1 for <>; Mon, 11 May 2020 04:17:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id flFlxpt1uQEv for <>; Mon, 11 May 2020 04:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 310DD3A087B for <>; Mon, 11 May 2020 04:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <>) id 1jY6Qx-0000xd-KC for; Mon, 11 May 2020 11:17:19 +0000
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 04:17:16 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Randy Bush <>
To: SIDR Operations WG <>
In-Reply-To: <> <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
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: <>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.