Hi all, > On Apr 1, 2015, at 4:06 AM, David Mandelberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > While thinking about RRDP (draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-00), I realized > that there's a minor conflict between RRDP's push to transition from rsync to > http(s), and the TAL format's requirement to use only rsync URIs. I propose > the below changes to draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis-03 to make RRDP's work > easier in the future without causing any harm now. Sorry to bring this up so > late in the process for draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6490-bis. > > > In the abstract, change: > > This document obsoletes RFC 6490 by adding support for multiple URIs in a > TAL. > > to: > > This document obsoletes RFC 6490 by adding support for multiple URIs in a > TAL, and allowing URI schemes other than rsync. >
There is no need for this just now. As long as we have rsync as well, there is no problem fetching the root certificate using rsync. Also, experience with and discussion of RRDP may actually lead us to wanting something slightly different eventually (e.g. if we should come up with a more defined way to refer to specific objects in RRDP). In short: I think we should come back to this later when RRDP is mature enough. Thanks, Tim _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
