Subject: [sidr] Discussion point: implementation guidance (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests-06)

From: Sandra Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:25:28 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

wrt: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-manifests-06

I exchanged several messages with a manifest document author asking for 
help with my confusion regarding some points in this draft, particularly 
having to do with timing issues in publication of new manifests and in 
sharing a repository publication point with a different CA cert.

It is pretty clear to me that different implementation choices, 
particularly on re-key of a CA, could make the RPKI system "noisy" (in the 
term used by my correspondent), producing non-fatal error messages that 
would need to be inspected and dealt with (and commonly dismissed).

I also see no impact on routing (routing does not break) from these 
implementation decisions, so there the draft could progress as is without 
harm.

But I can see the need for some implementation guidance.

The wg list last year engaged in a discussion of synchronization timing 
recommendations in the res-certs draft.  In that discussion, one 
suggestion was to produce a separate operations guide along the lines of a 
BCP.  It seems to me that this implementation guidance could be similarly 
separated.

What says the wg on the desire for implementation guidance?  Needed or 
not?

If needed, what says the wg on the need for separate implementation 
guidance document(s) vs guidance in the manifest document itself?

--Sandy

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:05:57 -0400

I think implementation guidance will be useful.

to me, a separate doc seems appropriate.

Steve