Re: [routing-wg]2008-04 New Policy Proposal (Using the Resource Public Key Infrastructure to Construct Validated IRR Data)

[Geoff Huston gih@localhost]

Randy Bush wrote:
> > It may also be useful to consider this in the light of alternative 
> > approaches where the RPSL object is signed by the resource holder, 
> > using a signing certificate that is validatable in the context of a 
> > resource PKI.
> who signs as-set:?  
If the as-set has a hierarchical name (as described in RFC 2725 and possibly elsewhere) then the signer would be the AS holder of the AS named in the hierarchical name form, wouldn't it?


> how does maintainer map to anything in rpki?
I would've thought, after looking through the RFCs that explored this topic back in 1999 - 2000, that the maintainer of a inetnum object would be the address holder, the maintainer of the aut-num object would be the as number holder, and the maintainer of the route object would be the address holder, which would map back into the RPKI

...  as
> i said, bad impedance mismatch.
I'm not sure I can agree with this assertion at this stage.


> > What classes of IRR objects could be generated using the approach of
> > generating IRR objects from RPKI data?
> route:
I'm still wondering if that is a sufficient subset of the IRR information set.


regards,

  Geoff