Actually, RIPE has implemented NRTMv4:
https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/releases/tag/whois-1.106
[https://opengraph.githubassets.com/e32c2bc44f149263e900a91411646105e2efb907fcf9e39b4759c0f6899ba05b/RIPE-NCC/whois/releases/tag/whois-1.106]<https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/releases/tag/whois-1.106>
Release Whois Release 1.106 · 
RIPE-NCC/whois<https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/releases/tag/whois-1.106>
Whois Release 1.106 includes the following main change: NWI-19 Implement AS_SET 
NONAUTH Implement "networks" and "autnums" elements in RDAP entity response 
RDAP changes NRTMv4 implementation Impro...
github.com
The endpoint is also available at https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/nrtmv4/
________________________________
From: Sasha Romijn <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 07:16
To: Huang, Shengyuan <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; 
[email protected] <[email protected]>; Dainotti, 
Alberto <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Clarification on next_signing_key format of NRTM v4

Hello,

On 22 Mar 2023, at 8:09, Huang, Shengyuan wrote:
> I am trying to implement a client for NRTM server since RADb is supporting 
> it. I have some confusion about the signing key.

This surprises me - to my knowledge RADB only has a current implementation of 
NRTM v3. There is no NRTM v4 code in production that I know of yet.

> The current draft says: "...If present, it MUST be an Ed25519 [RFC8032] 
> public key encoded in base64 [RFC4648], which matches the private key the 
> mirror server will start using to sign the Update Notification File in the 
> near future. "
>
> However, in the example, the field "next_signing_key": "96..ae" looks like a 
> byte representation instead of a base64 representation of a ed25519 public 
> key. (Since the key length of a ed25519 public key is not a multiple of 3, 
> the base64 representation must ends with a "=".)

You are entirely right, these are inconsistent. My first thought is that we 
should use hexadecimal byte encoding, making it the same as for file hashes. I 
don’t feel strong on that though as long as it is consistent with the example.

Sasha
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Reply via email to