: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-12
That being said, I agree with you that from the point of view of a
denial-of-service prevention, that we should be recommending that
implementations Skip out after a failed signature verification. When I read
the text in Step III on page 29 within Section 5.2
, June 15, 2015 at 12:41 AM
To: sidr@ietf.org sidr@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] New Version: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-12
I have submitted a new version of the BGPsec protocol specification.
This version includes some minor fixes as well as all of the changes
discussed at IETF 92. (Minutes
@ietf.orgmailto:sidr@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] New Version: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-12
I have submitted a new version of the BGPsec protocol specification.
This version includes some minor fixes as well as all of the changes discussed
at IETF 92. (Minutes can be found here --
http
see skip-out logic in expression evaluation
a friend just whacked me for being obscure by using compiler and
language geekery. sorry.
when evaluating
A B, if A is false, there is no sense evaluating B.
A | B, if A is true, there is no sense evaluating B.
this sometimes surprises new
David,
Thanks a lot for raising this issue.
Based on the discussion in Dallas, I was hoping that we could just go with
the clean approach of including the MP_REACH_NLRI attribute in the
signature.
As you correctly point out, we can't sign MP_REACH_NLRI, because the
Network Address of Next Hop
On 2015-06-19 14:00, Sandra Murphy wrote:
Anyone who commented on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-11.txt is
encouraged to review this version and report if your comments have or
have not been addressed.
My comments have been addressed, but I have some questions about the
way one of them was
On Jun 18, 2015, at 5:15 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this means you are asking for a WGLC, yes?
Not necessarily. The draft went into wglc in January. Matt discussed his
planned response to the comments received at IETF92. This version includes
those
I think this means you are asking for a WGLC, yes?
If so we can ship a note to the list (here) about that...
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Matthew Lepinski
mlepinski.i...@gmail.com wrote:
I have submitted a new version of the BGPsec protocol specification.
This version includes some minor
I have submitted a new version of the BGPsec protocol specification.
This version includes some minor fixes as well as all of the changes
discussed at IETF 92. (Minutes can be found here --
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/minutes/minutes-92-sidr) I believe that
all open issues with this
