Re: [Sidrops] nlnet rp and rsync

Martin Hoffmann <martin@opennetlabs.com> Wed, 13 May 2020 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <martin@opennetlabs.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 AD4783A1033 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2020 03:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 p3yMWLdyjGs8 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2020 03:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (dicht.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2a04:b900::1:0:0:10]) (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 112753A1031 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2020 03:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl (82-197-214-124.dsl.cambrium.nl [82.197.214.124]) by dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E2AB359F1; Wed, 13 May 2020 12:53:41 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=opennetlabs.com
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=martin@opennetlabs.com
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 12:53:41 +0200
From: Martin Hoffmann <martin@opennetlabs.com>
To: Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
Cc: SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200513125341.1ab3c222@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl>
In-Reply-To: <20200512204126.7A03220156D8FC@minas-ithil.hactrn.net>
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> <m2y2py3emb.wl-randy@psg.com> <20200512204126.7A03220156D8FC@minas-ithil.hactrn.net>
Organization: Open Netlabs
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.5 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/pyuSpZyawUBx5PHanPaqGVTiGzo>
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: Wed, 13 May 2020 10:53:46 -0000

Rob Austein wrote:
> FWIW: I believe that the intent of the WG at the time we wrote the
> current specification was that rsync be mandatory to implement for
> both CA and RP.  As others have noted, the somewhat misnamed
> "deprecate-rsync" draft is about changing that, which is fine if
> that's the direction we want to go, but for now I think an RP is
> required at least to attempt to fall back to rsync when RRDP fails.

This particular case has its very own section in RFC 8182, section
3.4.5. This section does explicitly not require to fall back to rsync
and leaves it to the relying party software whether it wants to try any
other method or not. My, purely subjective, reading of its tone is
that it even suggests not to bother.

Kind regards,
Martin