Skip to main content

Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Repository Requirements

Document Type Replaced Internet-Draft (sidrops WG)
Expired & archived
Authors Tim Bruijnzeels , Randy Bush , George G. Michaelson
Last updated 2020-08-31
Replaces draft-sidrops-bruijnzeels-deprecate-rsync
Replaced by draft-ietf-sidrops-prefer-rrdp
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Replaced by draft-ietf-sidrops-prefer-rrdp
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:


This document formulates a plan of a phased transition to a state where RPKI repositories and Relying Party software performing RPKI Validation will use the RPKI Repository Delta Protocol (RRDP) [RFC8182] as the only mandatory to implement access protocol. In short this plan consists of the following phases. In phase 0, today's deployment, RRDP is supported by most, but not all Repositories, and most but not all RP software. In the proposed phase 1 RRDP will become mandatory to implement for Repositories, in addition to rsync. This phase can start as soon as this document is published. Once the proposed updates are implemented by all Repositories phase 2 will start. In this phase RRDP will become mandatory to implement for all RP software, and rsync must no longer be used. Measurements will need to be done to help determine when it will be safe to transition to the final phase of this plan. During this phase Repositories will no longer be required to provide rsync access for RPKI validation purposes. However, they may still provide rsync access for direct access to files for other purposes, if desired, at a best effort basis. Although this document currently includes descriptions and updates to RFCs for each of these phases, we may find that it will be beneficial to have separate documents for the plan, and each phase, so that it might be more clear to all when the updates to RFCs take effect.


Tim Bruijnzeels
Randy Bush
George G. Michaelson

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)