Thanks for the quick reply. > I think the wording needs adjustment. As written, it assumes a certain > relationship in how the keys for
Yes, that was the impetutus for the proposed change. > the security association between the ETR and the Map Server are define (the > Mapping System Provider That is correct. > decides to change the keys.) In practice, key change may be driven by either > party, and the key collaboration is outside of our scope. When they have > decided to migrate to supporting new keys, the key-id usage, as described, > allows for a smooth transition. Right. I think that a provider will tend to control the key change than the subscriber. Because the subscriber is being given access to a service. But yes, in theory, either side could change where maybe the map-server is using two key-ids because one xTR wanted to change their key and other xTRs did not. For whatever reason. I’ll draft up text and send to the list. Dino _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
