Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-16: No Objection
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-bgpsec-ops/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Happy to see an operational considerations document at the same time at the protocol specifications, even if we know that "It is expected to evolve as BGPsec is formalized and initially deployed." Thanks Randy Proposal: one extra section on migration/deployability There is text in draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21 How will migration from BGP to BGPsec look like? What are the benefits for the first adopters? Initially small groups of contiguous ASes would be doing BGPsec. There would be possibly one or more such groups in different geographic regions of the global Internet. Only the routes originated within each group and propagated within its borders would get the benefits of cryptographic AS path protection. As BGPsec adoption grows, each group grows in size and eventually they join together to form even larger BGPsec capable groups of contiguous ASes. The benefit for early adopters starts with AS path security within the contiguous-AS regions spanned by their respective groups. Over time they would see those contiguous-AS regions grow much larger. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
