Subject: [sidr] #14: Nit Report - architecture document

From: "sidr issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:49:35 -0000

#14: Nit Report - architecture document
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  gih@…            |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect           |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor            |   Milestone:     
Component:  arch             |     Version:     
 Severity:  In WG Last Call  |    Keywords:     
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
 Sam Weiler has noted

 Section 4.3 (access protocols): the rsync item, as noted by others.
 4.3 also uses 2119 language to specify requirements for (current and
 future) access protocols.  I'm not convinced that language is
 appropriate for these requirements.

 5 (Manifests) allows an EE cert to sign multiple manifests.  That
 seems inconsistent with section 2.3 re: one-to-one correspondence.

 3.2 "There is no independent method of invoking a ROA."
 s/invoking/revoking/, perhaps?

 Section 7.1: "However, if the certificates for these allocations
 contain different validity intervals, creating a certificate that
 combines them might create problems, and thus is NOT RECOMMENDED."
 Doesn't this problem arise when the underlying validity (e.g. the
 validity of the assignment/allocation/etc.) intervals vary, rather
 than the cert validity intervals?  Perhaps this could be clearer.

 7.2 "Furthermore, a relying party must fetch new ROAs from the
 repository system before taking any routing action in response to a
 ROA revocation."  Is this reflected in the validation drafts?  It
 should be likely be repeated in section 3 or 4 of the ROA format doc.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://zinfandel.levkowetz.com/wg/sidr/trac/ticket/14>
sidr <http://tools.ietf.org/sidr/>