I agree that intent can not be known.
Which is why I had asked that the motivation / intent related text be
included in the introduction, not in the requirements. I was not trying
to change the requirements. Rather, I am asking that the document
include some context, to help the reader accurately understand the
requirements. One can argue that formally that is irrelelvant. Based
on history, it seems very useful to me.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/4/2011 8:03 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
the current, yet to be pushed, text is
3.1 A BGPsec design must allow the receiver of a BGP announcement
to determine, to a strong level of certainty, that the received
PATH attribute accurately represents the sequence of eBGP
exchanges that propagated the NLRI from the origin AS to the
receiver.
discussion of intent is simply inappropriate, you can not know it. and we
want to protect against path prevarication where there was no intent at
all.
bgp has so many wonderful knobs, such as the one to masquerade as a
different asn. mistype it and ...
randy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
