At Tue, 07 Dec 2010 11:19:22 +0100, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote:
> 
> If I remember correctly I think Roque and Steve mentioned that CA 
> certificates on any level may be used by RPs as a Trust Anchor -- even 
> if you did not plan to make yourself available as a TA (i.e. publishing 
> your cert info as per TA draft). The staging period was introduced to 
> give RPs down the chain from you at least some opportunity to notice the 
> change and start using the new cert in place of the old one..

I am far from certain that I buy this argument (and yes, I understand
that you're trying to recount it from memory, not necessarily
advocating it).  Every RPKI operator in the world must be *required*
to publish keys using new certs for 24 hours just in case some
stranger somewhere happens to be constructing trust anchors using
their certs?

To be clear: I do not object to *allowing* prepublication of certs
using new keys, there are scenarios where it makes a lot of sense (eg,
having a new key out there all ready to use so one can roll quickly in
the event of a key compromise).  It's putting this in as a hard
*requirement* imposed on every RPKI operator that bothers me.

> But as I said, if I remember correctly.. maybe Roque or Steve can 
> comment on this?

And, even if the WG buys this argument, it would need to go in the
draft.

As for why I think there may be a need for some kind of staging (or,
at least, a need for the absence of a hard requirement for immediate
revocation of OLD CA after reissuing all subordinates under NEW CA):
think about network partitions.  In particular, think about network
partitions that leave the publication point holding the CRL covering
OLD CA itself reachable while leaving the publication point for OLD
CA's and NEW CA's subordinates unreachable.  RP wants to continue
using cached copies of subordinates issued by OLD CA, since RP can't
reach the new subordinates issued by NEW CA -- but OLD CA has been
revoked.  Oops.  Thud.
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Reply via email to