WG Chair hat off On 23/07/2009, at 8:25 AM, Stephen Kent wrote:
The document you have written definitely is a profile. However, the reference documents allow such a profile to include algorithm specs, or not. I think we agree that the policy OID specified by the CP should capture the alg spec as well as the cert/CRL profile. The question is whether we put the alg spec in the profile, the CP, or a third document.
yes, I agree with this characterization of the question here.
If we agree that there will be a need to change the alg suite over time, the we can discuss how we want to minimize the impact of such changes.
And yes, I agree with that need.
if we agree that the goal for the RPKI is to mandate support for at most two algorithm suites (current and next, to enable a transition), then we should state that in the CP, even if we don't specify the alg suites there.
I can live with this proposed approach, which, as I understand it, is for the CP to state that it may be updated in the future with a version of the CP that allows for the use of an updated profile that specifies the use of a "next" algorithm and the means of transition. The implication is that a change in algorithm would entail the updating of the profile with the addition of the proposed algorithm and the updating of the CP to reference this updated profile as part of the transition to the "next" algorithm.
regards, Geoff _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
