Re: Proposed Agenda items of Tallinn meeting

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

>> As this is an internal protocol we'd like to propose that no common
>> specification for this protocol is required, and the protocol used to
>> communicate between the module of the certificate system and the
>> associated databases are a matter for the implementation to determine.
> 
> I agree that it the system could work without a common protocol here,
> but if there's to be any hope of a shared implementation, I think it's
> important for the people who understand how the rest of the system
> works to debug this protocol and make sure it can support what
> everybody needs.

this devolves to why we document protocols.  it's for the *user*.

isp/lir/nir needs to be independent of rpki implementation, be able to pick
and choose.  for example it lets them get into the game with an early
implementation of rpki and repository, then change to one which suits them
better later.

also, software developers of ir backend package(s) need to be able to
be rpki-implementation-agnostic.

randy