> 在 2015年12月3日，14:32，Geoff Huston <[email protected]> 写道： > > >> On 3 Dec 2015, at 5:24 PM, Declan Ma <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> 在 2015年12月2日，18:23，Geoff Huston <[email protected]> 写道： >>> >>> >>> >>> Example 2: >>> >>> A CA Cert: 1.0.0.0/24, 2.0.0.0/24 >>> >>> issues: >>> >>> B CA Cert: 1.0.0.0/24, 2.0.0.0/24, 3.0.0.0/24 >>> >>> issues: >>> >>> C EE Cert: 1.0.0.0/24, 2.0.0.0/24 >>> >>> and signs >>> >>> ROA: 1.0.0.0/24 AS1 >>> >>> still all good (assuming that A is a trust anchor) >>> >>> Example 3: >>> >>> A CA Cert: 1.0.0.0/24, 2.0.0.0/24 >>> >>> issues: >>> >>> B CA Cert: 1.0.0.0/24, 2.0.0.0/24, 3.0.0.0/24 >>> >>> issues: >>> >>> C EE Cert: 1.0.0.0/24, 3.0.0.0/24 >>> >>> and signs >>> >>> ROA: 1.0.0.0/24 AS1 >>> >>> still all good (assuming that A is a trust anchor) >> >> Geoff, >> >> >> In section 2.3 of RFC 6480, the very text says: >> >> For ROAs and manifests, there will be a one-to-one correspondence >> between end-entity certificates and signed objects, i.e., the private >> key corresponding to each end-entity certificate is used to sign >> exactly one object, and each object is signed with only one key. >> >> >> Due to the so-called one-to-one, why bother to create an EE cert that has >> more INR than its corresponding ROA? >> >> Sorta confused. >> > > I have no idea why either - but - the specs don’t say that the resources > listed in the EE cert must exactly match the > resources in the ROA, so its possible for the EE cert to have a larger number > resource set than the ROA. > > > regards, > > Geoff >
Indeed. I am fine with this. Di, _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
