At Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:27:59 -0500, Matt Lepinski wrote: > > My understanding of the discussion at the meeting was that the proposed > prohibition would cover all three cases that you list below. The > proposal was raised by Rob Kisteleki and Rob Austein, so I defer to > either of them who would like to clarify.
For those who didn't hear my comments at the meeting: RFC 3779 doesn't allow overlaps. Checking whether a ROA is covered by an RFC 3779 certificate is a bit easier if one doesn't need to implement the merge operation necessary to allow overlaps when converting from a ROA to an RFC 3779 resource set. If there's a useful purpose served by allowing overlaps, fine, I'll implement the merge, but until Ruidiger's comments today I had not heard anybody claim that allowing these overlaps serves a useful purpose. So at this point I'm waiting for the outcome of the discussion between Randy and Ruidiger to find out whether these overlaps are useful. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
