The working group charter does not currently address path security. But there is always the possibility of modification of the charter, particularly as we seem to have finally managed to achieve consensus on a lot of our current work.
--Sandy > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Danny McPherson > Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 11:57 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [sidr] new draft > > > On Jan 27, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: > > > > > I'd like SIDR to consider adopting a threat model for BGP path secruity > > as a WG item, and offer this as a starting point for the discussion (if > > the WG agrees to pursue this topic). > > > Thanks Steve for posting this, as many have noted path security > is necessary and very important to secure inter-domain routing. > > For the chairs, > As a point of order, are we agreeing now that the WG is going to address > path security? In resource certification repositories? or routing > protocols > themselves? Given that my _comments previously were constrained by > this, I do hope we agree addressing path security will now be in charter > and > within scope of the WG - or perhaps we create a new WG that works on items > beyond resource certification and RPKI and focuses on routing protocols > - or if they're attempting to adapt current protocols (e.g., BGP) then the > extensions be performed in those respective working groups (e.g., IDR)? > > That said, I do hope we don't assume that discussions of path security in > a > routing protocol should be constrained by the RPKI architecture itself. > > -danny > > > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
