hi kyle
> Can one of the authors cite a specific reference to the problem that
> this draft is trying to address? A written example of where this
> "false notion" exists?
let be be lazy and quote the response to a similar question in an
artart review
a few years back, two of the co-authors of a lot of sidr rfcs, working
at apnic (supposedly a prudent steward of the net infra), put up a "sign
arbitrary blob" service, with no warnings of the semantics. one of them
just wrote to say he thought 6480 was sufficient; which pretty much says
it all.
and early drafts and discussions of the first two informative references
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc]
Snijders, J., Harrison, T., and B. Maddison, "Resource
Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) object profile for Signed
Checklist (RSC)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-sidrops-rpki-rsc-06, 12 February 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-
rsc-06.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta]
Michaelson, G. G., Huston, G., Harrison, T., Bruijnzeels,
T., and M. Hoffmann, "A profile for Resource Tagged
Attestations (RTAs)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-rta-00, 21 January 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-sidrops-rpki-
rta-00.txt>.
brought to light massive misunderstanding and misrepresentation, despite
6480
yes, this is depressing and a bit shocking. sad to say, those terms can
be applied to a fair bit of RPKI deployment.
randy
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
