The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6482,
"A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7079

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Job Snijders <[email protected]>
Date Reported: 2022-08-10
Rejected by: John Scudder (IESG)

Section: 4

Original Text
-------------
   Before a relying party can use a ROA to validate a routing
   announcement, the relying party MUST first validate the ROA.  To
   validate a ROA, the relying party MUST perform all the validation
   checks specified in [RFC6488] as well as the following additional
   ROA-specific validation step.

   o  The IP address delegation extension [RFC3779] is present in the
      end-entity (EE) certificate (contained within the ROA), and each
      IP address prefix(es) in the ROA is contained within the set of IP
      addresses specified by the EE certificate's IP address delegation
      extension.

Corrected Text
--------------
   Before a relying party can use a ROA to validate a routing
   announcement, the relying party MUST first validate the ROA.  To
   validate a ROA, the relying party MUST perform all the validation
   checks specified in [RFC6488] as well as the following additional
   ROA-specific validation step.

   o  The IP address delegation extension [RFC3779] is present in the
      end-entity (EE) certificate (contained within the ROA), and each
      IP address prefix(es) in the ROA is contained within the set of IP
      addresses specified by the EE certificate's IP address delegation
      extension.
   o  The AS Resources extension is not used in Route Origin Authorizations
      and MUST be omitted.

Notes
-----
The ROA RFC is a bit under-specified compared to other RPKI Signed Object 
profile definitions. (For example, RFC 8209 ยง 3.1.3.4 is less ambiguous on the 
matter of RFC3779 extensions.)
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
This is a material (albeit small) change to the spec and doesn't appear to 
reflect the WG consensus at time of publication. Therefore rejecting, see 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/A_2jMTLbpgpK1H0G3QsVJ44T-kE/ as well.

--------------------------------------
RFC6482 (draft-ietf-sidr-roa-format-12)
--------------------------------------
Title               : A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs)
Publication Date    : February 2012
Author(s)           : M. Lepinski, S. Kent, D. Kong
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Secure Inter-Domain Routing
Area                : Routing
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Reply via email to