At 12:14 PM +1000 7/29/09, Geoff Huston wrote:
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
We could keep the CP static and have it point to the cert profile RFC
(and its successor RFCs), where the algorithm suites can be defined.
Or we could have a stand-alone document just for algorithm suite
descriptions, to which the CP points, or to which the cert profile
points. I think this last approach is preferable as when algs change
this would be the only document to change, and it would be a major
change. In contrast, if the cert profile is reissued only to reflect
alg suite changes, most of the document will remain unchanged.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
