[sidr] bgpsec and confeds [was: Minutes of 6/6/12 meeting uploaded]

bgpsec and confederations allow me to try to state clearly for the list When an update enters the first AS in a confederation, all last internal ASBRs within the entry AS of the confederation, i.e the first signers within the confederation, set a flag in the signature block that s

[sidr] Minutes of 6/6/12 meeting uploaded

Thanks to the minutes taker (Anuja) we have minutes, I uploaded them to: -chris co-chair ___ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/l

Re: [sidr] Follow-up on June 6 Interim : Confederations

> This solution for confeds *requires* each AS within a confed to sign > internally > (i.e., from AS to AS within the confed). It does not allow the choice to > a confed operator to sign or not sign the updates internally. > For instance, the operator may be satisfied with the level of mutual t

Re: [sidr] Follow-up on June 6 Interim : Confederations

If we want to make it optional for ASes to sign internally to a confed, that is perfectly fine with me. As long as they add their AS number to the Secure_Path, it would be easy to modify this solution so that ASes within a confed can optionally leave the digital signature field empty. With reg

Re: [sidr] Follow-up on June 6 Interim : Confederations

This solution for confeds *requires* each AS within a confed to sign internally (i.e., from AS to AS within the confed). It does not allow the choice to a confed operator to sign or not sign the updates internally. For instance, the operator may be satisfied with the level of mutual trust withi

[sidr] Follow-up on June 6 Interim : Confederations

We had significant discussion at the June 6 Interim on the topic of supporting confederation in BGPSEC without an AS-Path attribute. My understanding was that at the interim there was some consensus for the following confederation solution (but this consensus has not yet been discussed/confirm

Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-pfx-validate-06

True in the context of bgpsec. But this is just pfx-validate. Nonetheless, I am OK with leaving it as an exercise for the implementor -- as Hannes notes, this is how it ends up working anyway. --John On Jun 12, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote: > Speaking as regular ol' member: > > wrt

[sidr] SIDR Working Group Virtual Interim Meeting: Friday, June 29, 2012

The SIDR working group will hold a virtual interim meeting on June 29, 2012. Location: Virtual! Time: 0900 - 1300 EDT Agenda and dial-in information will be posted to the SIDR mailing list on June 22, 2012. ___ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://

[sidr] Requesting SIDR Interim (Virtual) meeting: 06/29/2012

Hello IESG Secretary, Please send out an announcement to the right places for an interim meeting (virtual attendance only) for the SIDR-wg, 06/29/2012 Location: Virtual! Time: 0900 - 1300 EDT Draft agenda to be sent 6/22/2012. Thanks! -Chris (sidr-co-chair)