> On 2012-03-21 16:50, Brian Dickson wrote:
...
Doing so would require, at a minimum, stopping forward progress on
-protocol docs, until the -reqs- and -threat- are adequately addressed.
On 2012-03-21 20:33, Russ White wrote:
> ...
> Given these failures, maybe it's time to start with requirements
> (rather than a solution) first, and see if we come to a better
> outcome.
On 2012-03-21 20:40, Eric Osterweil wrote:
>
> +1
Having a reasonable requirements document which defines what is that
should be protected seem like a very reasonable thing. Clearly for some
who "make/made decisions on the protocol" this may be a bit
uncomfortable as their design choices now would need to compete with
design proposals from others.
The requirement should explicitly list elements to provide ability for
gradual deployment .. maybe co-existence for some time. Clearly ideas of
removing AS_PATH or AS4_PATH and replacing it with PATH_SIG are not
really helping gradual deployment.
Decent requirement document should also specifically prohibit use of any
tools which can be controlled by politicians/courts to decide who stays
in the internet and who becomes uncomfortable and needs to be cut out.
So: +1
Rgs,
R.
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
