Randy,
Personally, I'm fine with the solution you outlined.
However, I didn't think that everyone in the room for the last interim
was on-board with this. That being said, I wasn't in the room, so I'm
not a good one to gauge consensus (or lack there of) ... I guess it
wasn't clear to me from the minutes whether or not this issue was
resolved, so I didn't stick into the -03 version of the document.
Note: If this issue is indeed resolved, then I'm happy to put the
solution in the -04 version of the document.
Other than confeds are there any other potentially open issues related
to the removal of AS_Path?
- Matt Lepinski
On 5/22/2012 5:25 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
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.)
i thought we were cheerily dumping as_confed_seq and thereby getting rid
of the last sequence. essentially
o you are at the border about to send to an external peer
o stepping back down the sigs, possibly zero times
o there will be a sig from an external peer to the confed as
o strip off all sigs subsequent to that one, if any
o sign from the confed as to the external peer
randy
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
