Eric,
...This is being pedantic in a case where I do not think it is helpful.
Well, I guess it's nice to know that you believe that being pedantic can sometimes be helpful :-).
You're saying, ``yeah, we changed semantics OUTSIDE of the BGP protocol, so that once _our_ semantics have decided it is ok to proceed, we can let BGP do its thing...'' but the you basically go on to say ``oh yeah, and we put our semantics _in_ BGP (thus changing it), and the results of our process can greatly impact the global routability of BGP... but those aren't changing BGP semantics...'' This falls right into the basic definition of semantics...
So, just for the record, I didn't say what you said above. (And I think you left off "... the end of civilization as we know it.") I may have a big mouth, but it's very inappropriate to stuff other people's words into it.
Let me try another, more concise phrasing. When one adds secruity to a protocol, the goal is to enable it to operate in a hostile environment with the same semantics that it offered in a non-hostile environment. Of course a secure version of a protocol will exhibit some differences in its operation from an insecure version, especially when one compares the two version in attacks scenarios. If that were not the case, we would not bother adding security to a protocol. The relevant question is whether the fundamental nature of the protocol is altered by the addition of security.
Also, the caveat that this is >30 year old thinking does not seem convincing of its correctness (maybe that's just me).
Well I am older than 30, so at least one interpretation of you critical comment above is accurate :-).
And, yes, maybe it is just you. Steve
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
