IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-15.txt

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 13 June 2023 12:39 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 059FBC151064 for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SO_NIWvBNPBz for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D544C14CE4C for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CF2171297; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:39:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [65.207.64.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E489E1711B5; Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:39:31 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.600.7\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230613094413.364aaa8c@smaug.local.partim.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:39:12 -0400
Cc: Ties de Kock <tdekock@ripe.net>, Job Snijders <job=40fastly.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, sidrops@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <26E1759F-08FA-430D-8F89-BDC6C3DC4B9D@vigilsec.com>
References: <168621843689.33017.6897451444105786551@ietfa.amsl.com> <ZIGogKIH4Srb8Nxt@snel> <20230608181440.33d6926f@glaurung.nlnetlabs.nl> <0C543A94-F70E-4A40-8350-C98FAAB5A9B5@vigilsec.com> <D100381E-6498-4EAD-B056-18F89836C097@ripe.net> <96D52BC8-C3BA-43C8-90E1-DD2621C2292F@vigilsec.com> <20230613094413.364aaa8c@smaug.local.partim.org>
To: Martin Hoffmann <martin@nlnetlabs.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.600.7)
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.11 on 66.39.134.11
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/q6HfFEesxR7yfDprSVbcK0CWSZU>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-profile-15.txt
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 12:39:36 -0000


> On Jun 13, 2023, at 3:44 AM, Martin Hoffmann <martin@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
> 
> Russ Housley wrote:
>>> On Jun 9, 2023, at 9:28 AM, Ties de Kock <tdekock@ripe.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> We have  
>>>> The elements of providers MUST be ordered in ascending numerical
>>>> order.  
>>> 
>>> In the text. My understanding of how a DER encoded SET is that this
>>> would imply this order. Is this correct?  
>> 
>> Not really.  The sort includes the tag, the length, and the value, so
>> it depends of the SET definition whether you will get ascending order.
> 
> But for a SET OF INTEGER (0..4294967295) this should actually be
> correct? The tag will be the same, shorter length sorts first, and
> equal length values sort with the smaller value first.
> 
> If that is correct, then we are using a SEQUENCE because it is easier
> and then require away what makes it easier.

Yes, for this case that is correct, but it is not always so, especially if the SET contains a CHOICE.

I do not think we want to have decode failures if the INTEGERS are not in sort order.

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email