Hi, On 29 Mar 2012, at 11:29, Rob Austein wrote:
> At Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:57:19 -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> >> Draft Author Ship Steerers, >> This we didn't chat about at the meeting(s), but are there outstanding >> bits/pieces or should this be sent along for WGLC in the near future? > > Not ready yet. A few year's experience of using this protocol > suggests the need for an additional message type, to let the RPKI > engine monitor what the publication server has on file for it. We've > seen a few cases where, for whatever reason (bug, system crash, ...) > the two can get out of sync, and while it's theoretically possible for > the RPKI engine to determine what's in the publication repository by > fetching as if it were a relying party, it'd probably be easier just > to let the RPKI engine ask the publication server directly. All this sounds very reasonable. Furthermore I expect that the current discussion on rpki retrieval can have implications for this protocol as well. For example, if it is decided that consistent delta sets should be supported (as I argued for in another thread), then I think we will need some transaction logic in this protocol: BEGIN, publish, publish, withdraw ... COMMIT (i.e. begin and commit pdus, or probably better: one big pdu containing all updates, instead of sending the publish and withdraw pdus separately). Tim _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
