well I would like to understand why there appears to be two parallel efforts to update RFC6485, and it was I suppose a question that is correctly passed to the chairs, given that the chairs wanted rfc6485bis produced, and I assume that the chairs similarly approved the WG adoption of bgpsec-algs.
The original desire was to isolate the structure and framework from the crypto, which is why RFC6485 was produced in the first place, but now it appears that we are fragmenting this and producing multiple crypto profiles. Geoff (I was told recently that the DNS specs now span a few hundred RFCs. For a widely deployed active protocol I can kinda see that, but I'm not sure that there is merit in SIDR at this point in time to take this same quantity of RFCs as an objective! :-) ) On 8 Jul 2014, at 9:42 am, Sandra Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2014, at 7:00 PM, Geoff Huston <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> the header of draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs-08 says: >> "Updates: 6485 (if approved) " >> >> >> so I'm still confused about the two 6485 update drafts. >> >> > > > Ah. So your original question was: > >> >> Whats the relationship between this draft and draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis? > > So you want to know if bgpsec-algs is updating the original RFC6485 or > updating rfc6485bis? > > --Sandy, speaking as regular ol' member _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
