Hi Tim, Regarding:
> I would like to add that on the one hand it's probably good that this > happened while the -bis is still in *draft*, because it gives us all an > opportunity to remove ambiguity before its publication as an RFC. On the > other hand, this is what you get when implementers are requested to make > changes based on drafts. > We will look forward to seeing the fixed code and getting the document clarified as a positive byproduct of this experience. Thanks for being so responsive. Tony On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 4:24 AM Tim Bruijnzeels <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 2 Dec 2020, at 22:33, Job Snijders via RPKI <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I propose some of us continue discussion at [email protected] where > > through wordsmithing in the draft-ietf-sidrops-6486bis effort so we help > > any future RPKI implementers from walking into the same problem. > > Indeed. > > We are perfectly fine with changing routinator's behaviour. The current > implementation reflects our interpretation of the draft text, and recent > sidrops discussions (e.g. it seems that over-claiming CA certificates > should lead to a publication point being considered entirely invalid). So, > there is ambiguity in the bis draft that needs to be addressed. > > I would like to add that on the one hand it's probably good that this > happened while the -bis is still in *draft*, because it gives us all an > opportunity to remove ambiguity before its publication as an RFC. On the > other hand, this is what you get when implementers are requested to make > changes based on drafts. > > Tim > >
-- RPKI mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/rpki
