Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration-05: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-as-migration/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm wondering a few things that I think are important to discuss. If this is all fine, I may have more comments as I think I'll need to dig into the BGPsec draft first and then this one again. 1. Why is this document preceding the BGP spec? Shouldn't this be part of the BGPSec protocol document? If BGPSec isn't getting deployed because of the AS path migration problem and this gets us a little further, but not quite as secure, maybe that's a trade off we need to accept. But this document coming through first is a little concerning even though the protocol spec is a normative reference. 2. The introduction makes this sound rather innocuous, but the security considerations section is more explicit that this is a work around BGPSec and isn't quite as secure. I'd like to see some text explaining this better in the introduction, more similar to what's in the first paragraph of the security considerations section. Thank you _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
