Subject: [Sidrops] About the use of manifests (follow-up from Apr Interim meeting)

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 19:02:02 +0000

Dear all,

At the last virtual interim meeting I heard several people suggestion
that "Section 6" needs stronger language. Unfortunately the webex audi
cut in and out so I didn't exactly catch section 6 of what RFC you were
talking about, so I hope I got the right one.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-manifest-validation/

Collaboration via email or github, I'm happy to convert received contributions
into the XML: https://github.com/job/draft-sidrops-manifest-validation/

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 15:56:22 -0400

Job,

Yes, Section 6 of RFC 6486.

I believe that most of the changes will arise in 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, and 
6.6.

I'll submit some proposed edits next week.

Steve

---

From: Job Snijders <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 20:01:12 +0000

> I believe that most of the changes will arise in 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, and

The current draft (draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-manifest-validation-00)
replaces Section 6 entirely. I don't know if that aligns with IETF
etiquette and it has to be done paragraph by paragraph, but I hope this
helps clarify our thinking.

> I'll submit some proposed edits next week.

Thank you! Edits welcome in unix patch format, in natural language in
email, whatever is easiest.

Kind regards,

Job

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 08:07:04 -0400

Job,
> helps clarify our thinking.

I'll see what my co-authors think, but I'm more of an angle hair past 
guy myself :-)

I think most of 6.1 is OK and I plan to reuse most of it in the rev. The 
ambiguity arises in the discussion of what an RP SHOULD/MUST do when an 
object is missing or in error, which is what the latter parts of Section 
6 address.

Steve

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 08:07:04 -0400

Job,

Steve

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 11:31:21 -0400

> I'll see what my co-authors think, but I'm more of an angle hair past

did you mean 'angel hair pasta' ? :) (which I agree, far better than
that gross fat worm pasta... but...)

> object is missing or in error, which is what the latter parts of Section

i think this was the meat of the previous discussion:
  "originally we left a lot of wiggle room, because <reasons>"

and today/now:
  "uhm, leaving this much wiggle room was ... oops! folk would REALLY
like to understand
   the tradeoffs in a succinct manner (that does not require phd in
pkix) and some better
   guidelines on what they should set as default behavior that
can/will set a base security/safety
   level for their deployment."

which I think is the goal of job's draft? I understood from previous
email conversations on
the WG list that the previous author set was happy to suggest
improvements but had no time/$$
for the full edit job?

Is there now time/$$ for the editoring to happen?
(maybe I'm confused, which totally could be the case)

-chris
(off reading current draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-spaghetti-sidrops-rpki-manifest-validation-00.txt)
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2020 09:03:28 -0700

as we do with RFCbis documents, i believe a significant group of the
original authors will be working on the update.

randy

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 12:41:24 -0400

> original authors will be working on the update.

ok, that's definitely not the impression I got from the previous
emails... and I think from the interim meeting discussion.
(which is why I am/was confused)

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 16:06:32 -0400

Chris,
> that gross fat worm pasta... but...)
yes, angel hair, unless I was thinking about elbow macaroni, with sharp 
angles
>    "originally we left a lot of wiggle room, because <reasons>"
agreed.
> improvements but had no time/$$
I will offer edited text for section 6 later today.

Steve

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 16:36:55 -0400

> yes, angel hair, unless I was thinking about elbow macaroni, with sharp

:)

> I will offer edited text for section 6 later today.

cool! are you planning on running this to ground fully? or sending
along the text and having another person manage the update stream/etc?

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 16:44:16 -0400

Chris,
> ...

someone has offered to handle the XML editing to produce a revised RFC, 
when we have agreed-upon  text, so I think we're good for now.

Steve

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2020 17:07:10 -0400

> when we have agreed-upon  text, so I think we're good for now.

ok, thanks!