Indeed. My point was not to draw RPKI into the solution space, or claim
something about its goals. I was just trying to illustrate that the wg has
already invested (heavily) in systems and designs that are not semantically
part of BGP. It just seemed silly (imho) to start claiming that
On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:41 AM, Russ White ru...@riw.us wrote:
Indeed. My point was not to draw RPKI into the solution space, or claim
something about its goals. I was just trying to illustrate that the wg has
already invested (heavily) in systems and designs that are not semantically
part
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
eosterw...@verisign.com wrote:
snip
- 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
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
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : Threat Model for BGP Path Security
Author(s) : Stephen Kent
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
vulnerability, addressing a comment by Chris Morrow.
