Skip to main content

Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Repository Requirements
draft-ietf-sidrops-prefer-rrdp-00

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Expired & archived
Authors Tim Bruijnzeels , Randy Bush , George G. Michaelson
Last updated 2021-08-26 (Latest revision 2021-02-22)
Replaces draft-ietf-sidrops-deprecate-rsync
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Formats
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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:

Abstract

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. The first objective is to make RRDP the preferred access protocol, and require rsync as a fallback option only. This will greatly reduce the operational burden and concerns for RPKI repository operators. 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 will be required as a fallback option only. It should be noted that 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 one or more separate documents for these phases, so that it might be more clear to all when the updates to RFCs take effect. Furthermore, this document currently includes an early discussion of a future objective, which would be to change the RPKI standards such that names in RPKI objects are no longer tightly coupled to rsync. By using transport independent names and validation, we will obtain the agility needed to phase out rsync altogether and/or introduce other future access protocols.

Authors

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.)