Sean, In Section 3.3 of http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles/, you are missing to mention that one of the difference from draft-ietf-sidr-res-cert-profile is that your document refers a different algorithm suite document. Consequently, a BGPSEC certificate will not validate draft-ietf-res-cert-profile, as long as the two algorithm suites are different, correct? If that is the case, I believe you should clarify it and probably remove the references that the new profile is consistent with draft-ietf-sidr-res-cert-profile certificates.
Roque On Aug 5, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > On 8/5/11 2:11 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 4 Aug 2011, Sean Turner wrote: >> >>> On 8/3/11 8:43 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >>>>> The intention was to focus on the use case for the proposed changes >>>>> (BGPSEC certs). >>>> >>>> what is a "BGPSEC cert?" >>> >>> What Mark and I are currently proposing in >>> draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles is that a BGPSEC certificate is a >> >> <snip> >> >>> >>> PS Technically, the EKU is defined in >>> draft-turner-bpgsec-pki-profiles. It's >> >> <snip> >> >>> If the WG decides to adopt this approach, then we'll go through the >>> appropriate procedures to request an OID and include it in the draft. >> >> Sean, would you like to request wg adoption for these two drafts? > > Yes I would like the wg to consider adoption of: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-pki-profiles/ > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-sidr-bgpsec-algs/ > > as the starting point for certificates and algorithms for BGPSEC. > > spt > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
