At the interim meeting in Amsterdam, we had a discussion on open issues in draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-05. Here is a link to the slides that I presented at that meeting. ( http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2012/09/29/sidr/slides/slides-interim-2012-sidr-6-1.pdf )
I would like to confirm on the list that the discussions at the last interim reflect the consensus of the working group. In this message, I list for each open issue, my understanding of the sense of the room in Amsterdam. If you believe that for any of these issues that I may be misunderstanding the consensus of the working group, please start a discussion on the list as soon as possible. I am currently working on the -06 version of the protocol draft, therefore, if you have an objection to anything in this message, please raise it promptly. -------------------------------- 1.1. In referring to the data that is typically carried in the AS_PATH attribute, I will a phrase similar to "The sequence of ASes through which an update passes" 1.2 With regards to transport security, the document will specify "SHOULD" use transport security to protect BGP sessions. However, the document will NOT specify (as either a MUST or a SHOULD) and specific transport security mechanism.
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
