Re: [Sidrops] what to do when the CRL is hosed?

[Jay Borkenhagen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Re-visiting an older message in preparation for the upcoming SIDROPS
virtual interim meeting.

On 23-March-2020, Stephen Kent writes:
 > I agree that more uniform processing is desirable, but in the routing 
 > system the notion of local policy seems to be ingrained, so ...

When I first saw this, I thought Steve was just making a pithy comment
about local policy and network operators.  But a friend thinks Steve
had not meant it as a joke at all, so let me take Steve's comment at
face value and respond:

As a network operator, yes, I expect to have the flexibility of
configuring my network using local policy.  But in the context of the
RPKI, we need to reach a point where all RFC-compliant RPs will
generate identical sets of VRPs when presented with the same input.
There will be reasons why I may prefer to operate one RP over another,
but the VRPs that a particular RP generates should never be one of
them.

No network operators want to specify any 'local policy' on their RP
instances to control under which conditions an RPKI object would be
accepted.  Some network operators in this WG have voiced strong
opinions about how such acceptance should be decided, but that's not
because they want the ability to exert local policy there.  Such
opinions are all toward the goal we share of all implementations
reliably creating a correct/consistent VRP set.


I encourage feedback from other network operators on this one simple
point.  Hopefully we all see this 'local policy' matter the same way,
and the WG can turn its attention to consistent handling of the corner
cases.

Thanks.
	
						Jay B.