Hello all, On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 09:26:19PM +0000, Templin (US), Fred L wrote: > RPKI is something we still have left to tackle in the near future, and > our path could very well lead to this document. Please maintain at its > current publication designation.
For what it's worth - I am an RPKI software developer, I am responsible for one of the world's very few actively maintained RPKI cache implementations. I've been reviewing the relevance of RPKI-related RFCs and whether our project should invest any development cycles in various specifications. To date, I never received any question from anyone in relationship to RFC 6494. This led made me question whether RFC 6494 ever saw any deployment on the global Internet. As far as I can tell none of the 5 Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) ever supported issuance of RFC 6494 End-Entity certificates in their hosted RPKI CA products. Also, as far as my research went, none of the open source RPKI signer software implementations (past and present) ever supported RFC 6494. None of the relying party implementations that I know of (past & present) support validation of RFC 6949 end-entity certificates. It seems to me RFC 6494 was more of a 'plan' or a 'dream' than an implemented reality. I am not sure that's going to change. RFC 6494 is sometimes framed as an successor of sorts to RFC 3971 - but given the lack of ability at the RIR-level & the lack of software to deploy this specification in the field for RIR-managed globally unique IP resources, I came to think that assignment of Historic status should be considered. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
