Hi, On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:29 AM, Terry Manderson wrote:
> > > On 25/11/09 6:31 AM, "Rob Austein" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Speaking as one of Geoff's co-authors, and with no intention of >> offending anyone: I would be ok with minor changes to the current doc >> that made it possible for others to reuse this work if they so desire, >> but I am not all that thrilled by the idea of pushing this work into >> the PKIX WG as a solution in search of additional problems, and I >> don't want to do anything to the current spec that would complicate >> RPKI use of it. > > I'm in agreement with Rob on this. Best to not go looking for more problems > that the manifest _might_ fix in the future. > To be specific I see a potential use of these manifests without the RFC3779 extension in the context of the compound trust anchor as described in the draft-ietf-sidr-ta. This would allow the 'eta' to publish a manifest for the rtacms object(s). However, I received signals that having this manifest there in the first place may not be desirable and I do agree that delays to get this document finalised should be avoided. Cheers, Tim > If such problems arise, then the PKIX chairs are clearly aware of this work > (noting Steve's response) and can advise accordingly. > > Cheers > Terry > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr Tim Bruijnzeels Senior Software Developer RIPE NCC [email protected] +31 20 535 4309 _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
