On Dec 20, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Eric Osterweil wrote: > > On Dec 20, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > >> That's is not true. We have seen some challenges in the current >> architecture since long ago and some are trying to address them: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rogaglia-sidr-multiple-publication-points/ >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-delta-protocol/ >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-validation-local-cache/ > > I totally appreciate the efforts behind these design enhancements, and I am > trying impugn the work that has clearly gone into them (or the people who did > the work). However, my concern is that without requirements analysis around > the core of the architecture that these enhancements speak to, how do you > know that you're not just building on a shaky/unstable foundation, or trying > to overcome fundamental flaws in its architecture? We haven't taken the time > to outline what bgpsec needs to do in order for us to be protected by it. > Therefore, we can't describe when we've met our goals.
Err... *_not_ trying to impugn sorry. :) Eric _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
