On 5/2/16 10:04 AM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > 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.
I have a lot of trouble imagining that this one could usefully be published without the other. > 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 > > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
