Sandy,
In my opinion the biggest open issue in the bgpsec protocol draft is the
confederation issue that we discussed at the previous interim. (That is,
if we don't include AS4_Path or AS_Path in a bgpsec signed update, then
we need to somehow encode the information that would be in the
AS_confed_sequence segments of the AS_Path.) At the April interim there
were three possible solutions that people put forward to address this
issue. However, we didn't decide on what was the best way forward. Now
that people have had some more time to think about the issue, I would
very much like to try and reach concensus at the Vancouver interim so
that we can close this issue. If it would be helpful, I'm happy to
throw together a few slides for the interim summarizing the problem and
the possible solutions discussed at the April interim.
Also, recently submitted a new version of
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol (the -03 version). This document has
significant changes from the (-02) version. Most, if not all of the
changes were discussed at the Paris sidr meeting, so it probably isn't
necessary to present them again. However, I would encourage anyone who
is able to read Section 3 (the format for the BGPSEC_Path_Signatures
attribute) of the -03 version before Vancouver. There may be places in
the draft where the foolish document editor failed to produce text that
reflects what the working group agreed to in Paris, and it would be good
to get those issues (if they exist) resolved sooner rather than later.
- Matt Lepinski
On 5/21/2012 6:27 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
Agenda deadline is Wed 23 Jun (day after tomorrow).
Please send suggestions to the list.
--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
________________________________________
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [sidr-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Murphy, Sandra
[sandra.mur...@sparta.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:05 PM
To: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun
Potential agenda items for the 6 Jun interim meeting.
The agenda needs to be announced two weeks ahead of time, which is next
Wednesday.
Please send suggested topics to the list. Below are two suggestions to spark
the discussion.
(1) AS_PATH
There was one agenda topic that we never directly addressed at the 30 Apr
meeting. That topic was the absence of the AS_PATH attribute from the bgpsec
protocol. (The info normally contained in the AS_PATH is contained in the
bgpsec attributes.)
The absence of the AS_PATH did come up in discussing other topics (see the
minutes), but we did not discuss it directly.
(2) router private key provisioning.
In the interim in San Diego, there were requests (from operators) that guidance
to operators of how to provision a router with the needed keys would be a good
idea. We had some discussion in the Paris meeting of two drafts discussing
provisioning the routers with their needed private keys. There's also been a
recent flurry of discussion on the list.
--Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
