>> Andrew suggests that the new naming schemes should be added to the >> repos-struct draft. >> >> Tim's message implies that the naming scheme would be added to the >> roa-format draft (by extension, to whatever draft creates a new >> repository structure element, like the ghostbusters draft). >> >> I'd like wg consideration as to which would be best, both now and >> going forward. > > I support adding .roa; I didn't realize it was not there already. > > I think we can wait for GB, because it is a new doc, not yet final > (it was just adopted by the WG). We will need to have each new RPKI > signed object specify it's file extension for the future, so why now > start with the GB doc, when it is approved.
lemme repeat. keeping track of a changing list of identifiers is (part of) the iana function and is why we have iana consideration sections in documents. probably repo structure should create the registry with certs and manifests and crls, and roa, ghostbusters, ... should add to it. randy _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
