Jeffrey Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 06:49:49AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:My question is: is it of any value to define a "canonical" format for a ROA?
I believe that we should have a canonical form for the resources in a ROA, and that we mandate that form in the ROA.
If you cannot define a canonical form, how do you define equivalence?(Yes, you can define equivalence algorithmically, but that algorithm is essentially a method for deriving a canonical form...)
Are we saying we don't need a definition of equivalence?
I don't think it adds much in the way of value to enforce this within the ROA. The noise it adds is harmless.
Having a canonical form can reduce the number of interoperability problems and makes writing test cases easier.
Rob -- Robert Loomans Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Software Engineer, APNIC Phone: +61 7 3858 3100 http://www.apnic.net Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
