On 11/11/2009, at 5:52 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
There have been two presentations to this working group in past IETF
meetings suggesting mechanisms for implementations of the BGP route
decision based on the RPKI. The first was Ruediger Volk's
presentation at IETF72 that suggested a way to map ROAs to IRR route
objects so as to feed into existing operator tools. (http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/72/slides/sidr-6.pdf
) The second was David Ward's presentation at IETF75 that suggested
a way to use prefix -> origin AS maps (possibly produced from ROAs)
in the BGP decision process. (http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/75/slides/sidr-8.pdf
)
Obviously people are beginning to work on implementations, but we
presently have no work going on concerning implementation. So the
question is - does the wg believe that working on implementations of
use of the RPKI and ROAs should be a work item for this wg? That
is, should the wg produce implementation specs?
WG co-chair hat ON
Sandy,
I am assuming your posting is made in the context of a co-chair of
this working group.
When I read the questions you have posed in your note, the first thing
I asked myself was: "Isn't this specification of mechanisms within the
scope of the charter already?" (http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/sidr-charter.html
) I'd like to briefly explore your question to the WG a little further
within the particular context of the WG charter, as questions related
to whether a WG adopts particular work items or not is, conventionally
for me in any case, equivalently phrased as a WG charter discussion.
I note in particular the following text in the charter: "The SIDR
working group will develop security mechanisms which fulfill those
requirements which have been agreed on by the RPSEC working group. In
developing these mechanisms, the SIDR working group will take
practical deployability into consideration." and "The SIDR working
group is charged with the following tasks: [...] Document specific
routing functionality modules within this
architecture that are designed to address specific secure routing
requirements as they are determined by the RPSEC Working Group"
I had assumed when reading this charter as an agenda for my efforts in
co-chairing this WG that the specification of specific mechanisms that
apply a validation framework to the information that is passed within
the inter-domain routing environment is already within the scope of
work for which this WG is chartered. Furthermore, if this WG does not,
or can not, deliver on this task then the WG would reasonably need to
provide reasons as to why it was not intending to fulfil this
particular aspect of its charter. If your question to the working
group is motivated by a different interpretation of the current
charter that specifically precludes such efforts related to the
specification of such mechanisms it would be extremely helpful to
understand what particular interpretation you have applied to the SIDR
charter to reach such a conclusion. It would also be helpful to me as
a co-chair, and I assume helpful to the members of the WG as well, to
understand a little more as to your motivation for posing this
question to the WG, and the implications, as you see it, in terms of
the chartered activity for this WG if there is some rough consensus
for, or rough consensus against, the final question you have posed to
the WG. (As this appears to be a WG charter topic I have included our
Routing AD into the conversation - I am sure that he will be able to
provide helpful guidance as appropriate here.)
It is also possible that you could've been saying: "While the WG did
not have a clear consensus view on adoption of a draft relating to a
security mechanism in BGP in recent weeks, this WG co-chair like to
encourage work on implementation of specific mechanisms, and in
particular would like to encourage the submission of material relating
to specification of mechanisms that build upon the validation
framework that is being specified in SIDR." If thats the case then my
comment is that I found the use of rhetorical questions was far more
confusing than helpful in conveying such a message.
regards,
Geoff
WG co-chair hat ON
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
