On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 09:56:01AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Job Snijders <job@bsd.nl> wrote:
> 
> > We could, but then instead of 1 smalL CA that would put all 55,000 CAs
> > in non-compliance. Your suggestion seems unproductive.
> 
> Is using a full pathhame non-compliant?

Define full? 255?

The relevant RFC allows multi-megabyte strings as names for RPKI
objects.

Kind regards,

Job