From nobody Wed Feb 13 07:33:49 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76021200D7 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:33:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f3fMTJZW629Y for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:33:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34D71126C7E for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:33:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 0C4CBB826EF; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:33:35 -0800 (PST) To: gih@apnic.net, ggm@apnic.net, carlos@lacnic.net, tim@ripe.net, andy@arin.net, daniel@afrinic.net, db3546@att.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, morrowc@ops-netman.net, sandy@tislabs.com X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: ydahhrk@gmail.com, sidr@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20190213153335.0C4CBB826EF@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:33:35 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Subject: [sidr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8360 (5638) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:33:48 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8360, "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5638 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Alberto Leiva Popper Section: 4.2.4.4 Original Text ------------- 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found in this extension. * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found in this extension. * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) Corrected Text -------------- 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found in this extension. * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension is present in certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-AS to the resources found in this extension. * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) Notes ----- There seems to be a copy-paste error. There are two bullet points explaining the initialization of VRS-IP, and none explaining the initialization of VRS-AS. All the evidence suggests that the two extensions (IP Address Delegation and AS Identifier Delegation) are meant to be handled similarly, so I believe that the last three bullet points are supposed to perfectly mirror the first three. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8360 (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-10) -------------------------------------- Title : Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered Publication Date : April 2018 Author(s) : G. Huston, G. Michaelson, C. Martinez, T. Bruijnzeels, A. Newton, D. Shaw Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Wed Feb 13 08:03:30 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B9F126C7E for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:03:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kTirlJANxBZf for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:03:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay.kvm02.ops-netman.net (relay.kvm02.ops-netman.net [IPv6:2606:700:e:550:5c82:28ff:fe25:4960]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C87112426A for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:03:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.ops-netman.net (mailserver.ops-netman.net [199.168.90.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay.kvm02.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E7C53FDE3; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:03:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailserver.ops-netman.net.ops-netman.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ops-netman.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 686B62C82416A; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:03:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.ops-netman.net; dkim=none reason="no signature"; dkim-adsp=fail (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:03:17 +0000 Message-ID: <87ftsrvfp6.wl%morrowc@ops-netman.net> From: Chris Morrow To: RFC Errata System Cc: gih@apnic.net, ggm@apnic.net, carlos@lacnic.net, tim@ripe.net, andy@arin.net, daniel@afrinic.net, db3546@att.com, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, morrowc@ops-netman.net, sandy@tislabs.com, ydahhrk@gmail.com, sidr@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20190213153335.0C4CBB826EF@rfc-editor.org> References: <20190213153335.0C4CBB826EF@rfc-editor.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Organization: Operations Network Management, Ltd. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8360 (5638) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:03:29 -0000 seems legit to me. At Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:33:35 -0800 (PST), RFC Errata System wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8360, > "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5638 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Alberto Leiva Popper > > Section: 4.2.4.4 > > Original Text > ------------- > 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in > certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found > in this extension. > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in > certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found > in this extension. > > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) > > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) > > Corrected Text > -------------- > 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in > certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found > in this extension. > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) > > * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) > > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension is present in > certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-AS to the resources found > in this extension. > > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) > > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) > > Notes > ----- > There seems to be a copy-paste error. > > There are two bullet points explaining the initialization of VRS-IP, and none explaining the initialization of VRS-AS. > > All the evidence suggests that the two extensions (IP Address Delegation and AS Identifier Delegation) are meant to be handled similarly, so I believe that the last three bullet points are supposed to perfectly mirror the first three. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC8360 (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-10) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered > Publication Date : April 2018 > Author(s) : G. Huston, G. Michaelson, C. Martinez, T. Bruijnzeels, A. Newton, D. Shaw > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Wed Feb 13 11:41:18 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E0D129532; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:41:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V9hx41p94zVY; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:41:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E776128766; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:41:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id A1B3AB82674; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:41:03 -0800 (PST) To: ydahhrk@gmail.com, gih@apnic.net, ggm@apnic.net, carlos@lacnic.net, tim@ripe.net, andy@arin.net, daniel@afrinic.net X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php From: RFC Errata System Cc: warren@kumari.net, iesg@ietf.org, sidr@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Message-Id: <20190213194103.A1B3AB82674@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:41:03 -0800 (PST) Archived-At: Subject: [sidr] [Errata Verified] RFC8360 (5638) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:41:17 -0000 The following errata report has been verified for RFC8360, "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5638 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Alberto Leiva Popper Date Reported: 2019-02-13 Verified by: Warren Kumari (Ops AD) (IESG) Section: 4.2.4.4 Original Text ------------- 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found in this extension. * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found in this extension. * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) Corrected Text -------------- 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-IP to the resources found in this extension. * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension is present in certificate x and x=1, set the VRS-AS to the resources found in this extension. * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) Notes ----- There seems to be a copy-paste error. There are two bullet points explaining the initialization of VRS-IP, and none explaining the initialization of VRS-AS. All the evidence suggests that the two extensions (IP Address Delegation and AS Identifier Delegation) are meant to be handled similarly, so I believe that the last three bullet points are supposed to perfectly mirror the first three. -------------------------------------- RFC8360 (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-10) -------------------------------------- Title : Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered Publication Date : April 2018 Author(s) : G. Huston, G. Michaelson, C. Martinez, T. Bruijnzeels, A. Newton, D. Shaw Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From nobody Wed Feb 13 13:37:11 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF88912F18C; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:37:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M8Fs-suM2HtN; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:36:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EDFE128766; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:36:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382EA28B003B; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:36:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A921F804E; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:36:58 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Sandra Murphy In-Reply-To: <20190213194103.A1B3AB82674@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:36:57 -0500 Cc: Sandra Murphy , ydahhrk@gmail.com, gih@apnic.net, George Michaelson , "Carlos M. Martinez" , Tim Bruijnzeels , andy@arin.net, daniel@afrinic.net, The IESG Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <28B68FF3-EE99-43BA-9CF8-BF73A56F1640@tislabs.com> References: <20190213194103.A1B3AB82674@rfc-editor.org> To: sidr list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] [Errata Verified] RFC8360 (5638) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:37:01 -0000 I=E2=80=99d be interested to hear from the implementer(s) of the = validation-reconsidered RFC what impact there is in handling this = change. (I suspect little impact, if any, but it would be very good to hear it = from the implementer(s). Suspicions don=E2=80=99t count for much.) =E2=80=94Sandy > On Feb 13, 2019, at 2:41 PM, RFC Errata System = wrote: >=20 > The following errata report has been verified for RFC8360, > "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered".=20= >=20 > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5638 >=20 > -------------------------------------- > Status: Verified > Type: Technical >=20 > Reported by: Alberto Leiva Popper > Date Reported: 2019-02-13 > Verified by: Warren Kumari (Ops AD) (IESG) >=20 > Section: 4.2.4.4 >=20 > Original Text > ------------- > 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: >=20 > * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in > certificate x and x=3D1, set the VRS-IP to the resources = found > in this extension. >=20 > * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) >=20 > * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) >=20 > * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in > certificate x and x=3D1, set the VRS-IP to the resources = found > in this extension. >=20 > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) >=20 > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) >=20 > Corrected Text > -------------- > 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: >=20 > * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in > certificate x and x=3D1, set the VRS-IP to the resources = found > in this extension. >=20 > * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) >=20 > * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) >=20 > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension is present in > certificate x and x=3D1, set the VRS-AS to the resources = found > in this extension. >=20 > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) >=20 > * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) >=20 > Notes > ----- > There seems to be a copy-paste error. >=20 > There are two bullet points explaining the initialization of VRS-IP, = and none explaining the initialization of VRS-AS. >=20 > All the evidence suggests that the two extensions (IP Address = Delegation and AS Identifier Delegation) are meant to be handled = similarly, so I believe that the last three bullet points are supposed = to perfectly mirror the first three. >=20 > -------------------------------------- > RFC8360 (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-10) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) = Validation Reconsidered > Publication Date : April 2018 > Author(s) : G. Huston, G. Michaelson, C. Martinez, T. = Bruijnzeels, A. Newton, D. Shaw > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing > Area : Routing > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr From nobody Wed Feb 13 13:43:53 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1543012F18C; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:43:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ivWMHxwsLn8h; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:43:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35B2D12785F; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 13:43:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF4A28B0043; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:43:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE5AF1F804E; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:43:40 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Sandra Murphy In-Reply-To: <28B68FF3-EE99-43BA-9CF8-BF73A56F1640@tislabs.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:43:40 -0500 Cc: ydahhrk@gmail.com, Geoff Huston , George Michaelson , "Carlos M. Martinez" , Andrew Newton , daniel@afrinic.net, The IESG , tim@nlnetlabs.nl Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <19935BC8-7836-429F-9218-B9C121B6EEF6@tislabs.com> References: <20190213194103.A1B3AB82674@rfc-editor.org> <28B68FF3-EE99-43BA-9CF8-BF73A56F1640@tislabs.com> To: sidr list X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] [Errata Verified] RFC8360 (5638) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 21:43:45 -0000 Just in case there are people who do not know, Tim=E2=80=99s position = has changed, the tim@ripe.net address is bouncing, and he has appeared = in ietf mail lately as tim@nlnetlabs.nl. So if you reply to my message or any of the RFC Errata System = messages, you might want to replace the = tim@ripe.net with the new address. =E2=80=94Sandy > On Feb 13, 2019, at 4:36 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 > I=E2=80=99d be interested to hear from the implementer(s) of the = validation-reconsidered RFC what impact there is in handling this = change. >=20 > (I suspect little impact, if any, but it would be very good to hear it = from the implementer(s). Suspicions don=E2=80=99t count for much.) >=20 > =E2=80=94Sandy >=20 >> On Feb 13, 2019, at 2:41 PM, RFC Errata System = wrote: >>=20 >> The following errata report has been verified for RFC8360, >> "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered".=20= >>=20 >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5638 >>=20 >> -------------------------------------- >> Status: Verified >> Type: Technical >>=20 >> Reported by: Alberto Leiva Popper >> Date Reported: 2019-02-13 >> Verified by: Warren Kumari (Ops AD) (IESG) >>=20 >> Section: 4.2.4.4 >>=20 >> Original Text >> ------------- >> 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in >> certificate x and x=3D1, set the VRS-IP to the resources = found >> in this extension. >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in >> certificate x and x=3D1, set the VRS-IP to the resources = found >> in this extension. >>=20 >> * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in >> certificate x and x=3D1, set the VRS-IP to the resources = found >> in this extension. >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension is present in >> certificate x and x=3D1, set the VRS-AS to the resources = found >> in this extension. >>=20 >> * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> Notes >> ----- >> There seems to be a copy-paste error. >>=20 >> There are two bullet points explaining the initialization of VRS-IP, = and none explaining the initialization of VRS-AS. >>=20 >> All the evidence suggests that the two extensions (IP Address = Delegation and AS Identifier Delegation) are meant to be handled = similarly, so I believe that the last three bullet points are supposed = to perfectly mirror the first three. >>=20 >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC8360 (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-10) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) = Validation Reconsidered >> Publication Date : April 2018 >> Author(s) : G. Huston, G. Michaelson, C. Martinez, T. = Bruijnzeels, A. Newton, D. Shaw >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing >> Area : Routing >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> sidr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >=20 From nobody Thu Feb 14 00:39:34 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8007B131091; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 00:39:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xbj3UBxLKJ9U; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 00:39:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2a04:b900::1:0:0:10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18579131055; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 00:39:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2a04:b900::1:b9b9:e896:9203:8e3a] (unknown [IPv6:2a04:b900:0:1:b9b9:e896:9203:8e3a]) by dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3585715E21; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:39:22 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=nlnetlabs.nl Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tim@nlnetlabs.nl DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1550133562; bh=4IjEFQBkJ+T1tFt25sxPJ2drLR5+zGwwoAxg8Io8Oxs=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=V20gBcLt35d/sc4TNsxti48omjtH9be/zD0SjVZuK5vuBcyDQBZoZ/SUP6YiHyeTI 3WcpAboyRDMcJpiFOlcxHpF/OtpevPOHX1CbSCMGNxO+VGLlnr+USQRmbBCmsdC1P/ iifu3YPQW+UxmCflBXjQnKENlScKqNKm/7tFS0Rs= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\)) From: Tim Bruijnzeels In-Reply-To: <28B68FF3-EE99-43BA-9CF8-BF73A56F1640@tislabs.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 09:39:21 +0100 Cc: sidr list , The IESG , Daniel Shaw , "Carlos M. Martinez" , George Michaelson , Tim Bruijnzeels Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8F9E7B83-9ABE-489B-8038-6586A6EBEAA3@nlnetlabs.nl> References: <20190213194103.A1B3AB82674@rfc-editor.org> <28B68FF3-EE99-43BA-9CF8-BF73A56F1640@tislabs.com> To: Sandra Murphy X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [sidr] [Errata Verified] RFC8360 (5638) X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 08:39:28 -0000 Hi all, The errata is correct, this is a copy paste error. There should be no impact on implementation, other than that if the = implementation follows the original text strictly it will not work for = ASNs on a trust anchor certificate, and if it's changed to follow the = corrected text it will work. Mea culpa, I blame my copy/paste skills and = replaying short term memory and my intent in proof reading my own bit of = text here. Tim > On 13 Feb 2019, at 22:36, Sandra Murphy wrote: >=20 > I=E2=80=99d be interested to hear from the implementer(s) of the = validation-reconsidered RFC what impact there is in handling this = change. >=20 > (I suspect little impact, if any, but it would be very good to hear it = from the implementer(s). Suspicions don=E2=80=99t count for much.) >=20 > =E2=80=94Sandy >=20 >> On Feb 13, 2019, at 2:41 PM, RFC Errata System = wrote: >>=20 >> The following errata report has been verified for RFC8360, >> "Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Validation Reconsidered".=20= >>=20 >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5638 >>=20 >> -------------------------------------- >> Status: Verified >> Type: Technical >>=20 >> Reported by: Alberto Leiva Popper >> Date Reported: 2019-02-13 >> Verified by: Warren Kumari (Ops AD) (IESG) >>=20 >> Section: 4.2.4.4 >>=20 >> Original Text >> ------------- >> 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in >> certificate x and x=3D1, set the VRS-IP to the resources = found >> in this extension. >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in >> certificate x and x=3D1, set the VRS-IP to the resources = found >> in this extension. >>=20 >> * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> 7. Compute the VRS-IP and VRS-AS set values as indicated below: >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension is present in >> certificate x and x=3D1, set the VRS-IP to the resources = found >> in this extension. >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> * If the IP Address Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension is present in >> certificate x and x=3D1, set the VRS-AS to the resources = found >> in this extension. >>=20 >> * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> * If the AS Identifier Delegation extension (...) >>=20 >> Notes >> ----- >> There seems to be a copy-paste error. >>=20 >> There are two bullet points explaining the initialization of VRS-IP, = and none explaining the initialization of VRS-AS. >>=20 >> All the evidence suggests that the two extensions (IP Address = Delegation and AS Identifier Delegation) are meant to be handled = similarly, so I believe that the last three bullet points are supposed = to perfectly mirror the first three. >>=20 >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC8360 (draft-ietf-sidr-rpki-validation-reconsidered-10) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) = Validation Reconsidered >> Publication Date : April 2018 >> Author(s) : G. Huston, G. Michaelson, C. Martinez, T. = Bruijnzeels, A. Newton, D. Shaw >> Category : PROPOSED STANDARD >> Source : Secure Inter-Domain Routing >> Area : Routing >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> sidr mailing list >> sidr@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr >=20 > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr