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