My WG-Chair hat tossed into the corner for this posting....
On 06/10/2008, at 11:54 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I am told that multiply signed roas are reappearing [...]
As I understand the substance of this post, the comment has been raised (again) that this is an unlikely situation and there is no need to make the specification more complex for unlikely cases.
In response I would argue (again) that the specification should be complete and provide appropriate guidance to implementors for all situations where interoperability is required, and this case, although not common, has been visible in the routing table already and will likely be visible in the routing table in future. Given that this does not define a new signature standard for CMS, nor a major change in the logic of ROA processing I do not see that this adds any undue complexity to implementations and has the benefit of covering the full range of anticipated use cases for ROAs in their application to signing route origination.
Geoff _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
