Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) Repository Requirements
draft-sidrops-bruijnzeels-deprecate-rsync-01

Document Type Replaced Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Tim Bruijnzeels  , Randy Bush  , George Michaelson 
Last updated 2020-04-25
Replaced by draft-ietf-sidrops-deprecate-rsync
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Replaced by draft-ietf-sidrops-deprecate-rsync
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-sidrops-bruijnzeels-deprecate-rsync-01.txt

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. 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.

Authors

Tim Bruijnzeels (tim@nlnetlabs.nl)
Randy Bush (randy@psg.com)
George Michaelson (ggm@apnic.net)

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