On 18/07/11 9:39 PM, "Tim Bruijnzeels" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > I agree that not having this mapping is tedious and error prone for RPs. I can agree that a mapping system is useful. It may just be that living unix world for far too long has seen me move away from the mandatory dos-like suffixes to the voluntary use of extensions in a unix file system as a *hint* to the file contents and nothing more. And I'm happy to see it written as a hint. A validated mapping should come, in my opinion from something more robust which also transcends the technology used in the repository. > > Example: > - ROA that isn't strictly standard compliant / validator has bug in ROA > recognition > > Validator tries to parse as roa, cer, crl, mft; then gives up... > So the validator has a bug. fix the validator? > This is not only ugly code to maintain, it also makes it difficult to debug > problems. The happy flow case, while cumbersome, is not the biggest problem > here I think.. > > How do we work out, in this example, what caused the actual problem? From the > software side it's rather involved to build something like: this looks 99% > like I ROA, one I don't understand, but it's probably what they meant or > something like that... so our tool just says: I don't understand this > *object*. > Same goes for a misname (malicious or otherwise) of the file. A robust mechanism as I see it doesn't live in three letter extensions. > > Whether this mapping strictly needs to be in this draft may be another > question. > Agree with that point. Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
