On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Andrew Chi wrote:
> On 1/17/2013 4:23 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats-04
>
> This revision clarifies the wording on route leaks as a residual
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Eric Osterweil
wrote:
> - I also don't understand how the text in this (a threats document) can claim
> that route
> leaks are beyond the scope of PATHSEC in a fait accompli manner... This is a
> threats document, right? This is a threat to BGP, right? The RP
On Jan 22, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Eric Osterweil
> wrote:
>
>> - I also don't understand how the text in this (a threats document) can
>> claim that route
>> leaks are beyond the scope of PATHSEC in a fait accompli manner... This is a
> I had thought the wg's broader goal was to protect those that rely on
> BGP?
good luck with that. start an insurance business.
it is to protect the protocol from being gamed.
randy
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/lis
On Jan 22, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I had thought the wg's broader goal was to protect those that rely on
>> BGP?
>
> good luck with that. start an insurance business.
Good one, Randy...
Eric
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Eric Osterweil wrote:
>
> On Jan 22, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> I had thought the wg's broader goal was to protect those that rely on
>>> BGP?
I think the goal has been to protect the routing system through better
protections of the protocol. I hope
