Re: [sidr] Question about manifest document

[Tim Bruijnzeels <tim at ripe.net>]

Hi,

On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:29 AM, Terry Manderson wrote:

> 
> 
> On 25/11/09 6:31 AM, "Rob Austein" <sra at isc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Speaking as one of Geoff's co-authors, and with no intention of
>> offending anyone: I would be ok with minor changes to the current doc
>> that made it possible for others to reuse this work if they so desire,
>> but I am not all that thrilled by the idea of pushing this work into
>> the PKIX WG as a solution in search of additional problems, and I
>> don't want to do anything to the current spec that would complicate
>> RPKI use of it.
> 
> I'm in agreement with Rob on this. Best to not go looking for more problems
> that the manifest _might_ fix in the future.
> 

To be specific I see a potential use of these manifests without the RFC3779 extension in the context of the compound trust anchor as described in the draft-ietf-sidr-ta. This would allow the 'eta' to publish a manifest for the rtacms object(s).

However, I received signals that having this manifest there in the first place may not be desirable and I do agree that delays to get this document finalised should be avoided.


Cheers,
Tim



> If such problems arise, then the PKIX chairs are clearly aware of this work
> (noting Steve's response) and can advise accordingly.
> 
> Cheers
> Terry
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Tim Bruijnzeels
Senior Software Developer
RIPE NCC

tim at ripe.net
+31 20 535 4309