After re-reading the -02 version, I do not think that this draft, as written, should be be adopted. I also retract my 'at mic' statement that this could work if termed as "interim" in function - as I doubt that there is any real mutual understanding of 'interim'.
So while the current RFCs do not specifically speak against this, I think that in making this an option and allowing such 'grandparent' objects that validate will create ambiguity and complexity. Just because it's possible, doesn't mean we should. I'd also note that with the concepts of the up-down protocol and the amazing level of flexibility in the RFC3779 extensions which allows both range and prefix options. Slicing and dicing the various cert's 3779 extensions to take away the chunk from "C" and give to "G" should be a case of machine work and a small set of up/down processing. Cheers Terry On 5/08/12 4:12 AM, "Alexey Melnikov" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > On behalf of SIDR WG chairs I would like to initiate 2 weeks acceptance call > for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting starting from today, August 4th. Please > send your positive or negative feedback to the mailing list or directly to > chairs. > > Thank you, > Alexey >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
