On Mar 21, 2012, at 1:56 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > > 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.
+1 more. -shane _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
