Subject: [sidr] RPSLSIG adoption?

From: Robert Kisteleki <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:40:19 -0600

Hi,

After my (rushed) presentation yesterday I'd like to ask if there are people 
in the WG who think that this idea is worth pursuing and should it be a WG item?

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kisteleki-sidr-rpsl-sig-00.txt
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/sidr-3.pdf

Regards,
Robert
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:43:23 -0600

I would support adoption of this item by the WG.

it think its entirely on-charter for SIDR, and I think its a  
substantive body of work we should document.

-George

On 18/11/2008, at 9:40 AM, Robert Kisteleki wrote:

> Hi,
>
> After my (rushed) presentation yesterday I'd like to ask if there  
> are people in the WG who think that this idea is worth pursuing and  
> should it be a WG item?
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:00:45 -0600

Robert Kisteleki wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> After my (rushed) presentation yesterday I'd like to ask if there are
> people in the WG who think that this idea is worth pursuing and should
> it be a WG item?
> 

i think it is one of many possible interesting side uses of the rpki.
it should be done in a wg for the application use, e.g. rps not sidr.

randy

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:07:10 -0500

Robert,

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 09:40:19AM -0600, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
> people in the WG who think that this idea is worth pursuing and should it 
> be a WG item?
>

I think this work is probably worth pursuing but I will echo a concern
raised at the session: This work is tightly bound to the stability of
the current object format drafts.  You may wish to either consider
delaying your work until those have finished stabilizing or simply plan
on having your document go against a moving target.

Also, please excuse a silly question since it's been a number of years
since I've been very RPSL savvy: How does this interact with RFC 2725,
if at all?

-- Jeff

---

From: Larry Blunk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:23:25 -0500

I would support adoption.  Would perhaps like to
see some consideration of hierarchical named sets
(i.e.  ASXXXX:AS-CUSTOMERS).

 -Larry Blunk

---

From: Robert Kisteleki <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:25:09 -0600

> on having your document go against a moving target.

The document that this one directly refers to is in WG last call, so I hope 
it's going to settle down soon. But even then, this is a fair advice.

> since I've been very RPSL savvy: How does this interact with RFC 2725,

It's not the intention of this draft to modify authentication/authorization 
behavior. Rather, it's an extension to the objects themselves.

Robert

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:25:51 +0100

> people in the WG who think that this idea is worth pursuing and should 

I like the idea but I think this question should be asked on the RPSL
list as well before deciding which group should pick it up.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam  (Cato & Henk)
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:26:36 -0600

I may misunderstand this, but my belief is that *ONLY* hierarchical AS- 
SET form of named sets can logistically be signed over, because they  
are the only ones which have a single entity (the hierarchical tagger)  
that can claim to own the set relationship. Which RPKi EE cert would  
glue all the set elements together?

Ie, anonymous named sets are 'hard' to sign. but the hierarchical ones  
are sort-of definitionally the best ones to use, and sign. The signing  
cert will relate to the single ASXXXX binding the list set.

-George

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:30:01 -0500

I concur with Larry.

Additionally, I agree with several of the participants who said this is good
work.  I don't believe good work should be discouraged just because of
administrative square-peg/round-hole problems.

-andy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:08:21 -0600

> I agree with several of the participants who said this is good work.
> I don't believe good work should be discouraged just because of 

i have not heard one voice discouraging this work.  did you want to do so?

where there seems to be disagreement is where the work should be done.

randy

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:27:12 -0500

> i have not heard one voice discouraging this work.  did you want to do so?

How did you get there from here?  I said I agreed that it is good work.

> where there seems to be disagreement is where the work should be done.

Yes. Let us let the good work get done instead of batting it back-and-forth.

-andy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:35:32 -0600

> How did you get there from here?

you said the work was being discouraged.  no one else was discouraging
it.  so process of elimination.

> Yes. Let us let the good work get done instead of batting it back-and-forth.

your annoyance at ietf process is likely not as large as mine.  but
discussing where a particular work should be done is a legitimate part
of the process.

randy

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:12:42 +1100

WG co-Chair hat ON

Thanks for this request Robert.

I'd like to put the question to the WG to adopt this draft as a WG  
document.

Please send in your comments to the WG by Friday November 28th on this.

I'll note the comments already posted on this thread so there is no  
need to post again if you've already voiced your views on this question.

thanks,

   Geoff

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:35:28 +1000

In re-reading the WG Charter, I note:

Lead-in paragraph:
"A related question concerns the level of trust than can be ascribed  
to attributes of a route object in terms of their authenticity"

Scope:

"Document the use of certification objects within this secure routing  
architecture"

It doesn't prescribe what a certification object is exactly, and with  
the above in mind I believe the SIDR working group is a suitable place  
for this work, and I think the WG should adopt this draft as a  
workgroup item and I am willing to read and review.

Thanks
Terry

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:38:47 -0700

>> are people in the WG who think that this idea is worth pursuing and  

I support the work as well, and am quite interested in any
work items that further enable employment of RPKI.  I too am
left wondering if scope creep of SIDR is going to be an
issue, but I'm not sure where else in the IETF this work
would be done at the moment.

Either we need the charter here explicitly extended to
include more work on deployment and extensions to adjacent
protocols (e.g., RPSL) if the relevant working groups are
defunct, or we need a 'sidrd' WG, or an RPS WG resurrection,
or we need to discuss just how to address the issue.  I'd
also note that the very expired WG Goals and Milestones
aren't useful in providing guidance.

> list as well before deciding which group should pick it up.

What RPSL list are you referring to here?

-danny

---

From: Robert Loomans <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:49:08 +1000

> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/slides/sidr-3.pdf

I'm happy to see this adopted as a WG item... and I will participate in
discussion and review.

Rob

-- 
Robert Loomans                                  Email: [email-masked]
Senior Software Engineer, APNIC                 Phone:   +61 7 3858 3100
http://www.apnic.net                              Fax:   +61 7 3858 3199
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:08:47 +0100

> What RPSL list are you referring to here?

The RPSLng WG group kept its mailing list to discuss future extensions
(and a possible restart if necessary) of RPSL.   The addres was
[email-masked].

Henk

---

From: Andrei Robachevsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:51:27 +0100

> (and a possible restart if necessary) of RPSL.   The addres was

As far as I remember there was no formal RPSLng WG at the IETF. All work
has been carried out through an individual submission on the mailinglist
Henk mentioned.

As for the rpslsig work, I support it. We might be worried a bit about
the scope creep of SIDR, but I think that essentially the same group of
people are going to be involved in reviewing rsplsig. So I support that
SIDR takes this as a WG item.

Andrei

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:11:47 +1100

WG co-Chair hat ON

Reminder: this call for comment on WG adoption of this draft finishes  
on November 28th (this Friday)

    Geoff

-----------------------------------------

thanks,

  Geoff

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:27:36 +0900

i think this could be useful work.  i do not think it should be a sidr
work item.

it belongs in some ops group, not routing.  and that is where rps used
to be.

randy

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:53:15 -0500

I have mixed feelings about this proposal.

I do not object in principle to signed RPSL, and using an EE cert 
from the RPKI to verify signed RPSL data seems reasonable as well.

However, I worry that we need to tightly restrict which RPSL data can 
be validated using an RPKI cert. My concern is that it would be easy 
for folks to misinterpret the extent of what an RPLI cert attests to, 
and thus accord signed RPSL data more trust than it deserves. I also 
worry that using RPKI certs for this purpose might cause folks to 
want to have Subject names be meaningful, not arbitrary, as now 
required by our specs. So, if Robert is comfortable with imposing 
these sorts of constraints, I think it appropriate to make this a 
work item.

Finally, I am also very sympathetic to the non-technical issue Randy 
cited, i.e., will adoption of this as a WG item distract us from the 
rest of the work we are already pursuing? Our first priority should 
be to focus on the 11 extant WG documents, achieve consensus, and 
progress them to RFCs.

Steve

---

From: Robert Kisteleki <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:39:43 +0100

Stephen Kent wrote:
> However, I worry that we need to tightly restrict which RPSL data can be 
> validated using an RPKI cert. My concern is that it would be easy for 
> folks to misinterpret the extent of what an RPLI cert attests to, and 
> thus accord signed RPSL data more trust than it deserves. I also worry 
> that using RPKI certs for this purpose might cause folks to want to have 
> Subject names be meaningful, not arbitrary, as now required by our 
> specs. So, if Robert is comfortable with imposing these sorts of 
> constraints, I think it appropriate to make this a work item.

Section (2) of the draft says:

"2.  Meaning of a signature

    By signing an RPSL object, the signer of the object expresses that:
    o  they have the right to use the resource that the object refers to
       (ie. found as the primary key or in some other field of the
       object);
    o ..."

So in fact I already restrict the usage to only those type of objects that 
have something to to with actual number resources (ie. this excludes person 
objects). I'd be less comfortable to state *in this document* that the 
certificate subject names should not be meaningful; I'd defer that to the 
higher level documents such as the certificate profile and architecture 
documents. However, since this is only redundancy, not a new requirement, 
I'm not specifically against this.

Robert

---

From: Taiji Kimura <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:18:54 +0900

I would support adoption of the draft.
and would like to read and review.

In Japan, an implementing project for digital signature
in IRR is going on. It has a tentative specification for
operational test.

It has different assumptions on signers from the draft.
But essentials of its syntax and motivation of securing
mirrored objects are very similar.
The implementers seems having interest on the draft as
a working item of the WG.

 -- kimura taiji