On Jul 7, 2014, at 9:11 PM, Sean Turner <turn...@ieca.com> wrote: > On Jul 07, 2014, at 19:42, Sandra Murphy <sa...@tislabs.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 7, 2014, at 7:00 PM, Geoff Huston <g...@apnic.net> wrote: >>> >>> Whats the relationship between this draft and draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis? >> >> So you want to know if bgpsec-algs is updating the original RFC6485 or >> updating rfc6485bis? > > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs adds support for EC public keys & signature > formats to RFC 6485 for BGPsec. If 6485bis is going to be updated to include > these changes then draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs can go away but I didn’t think > that was the plan. Assuming EC algs aren’t incorporated in 6485bis then > draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-algs needs to update RFC 6485 or any document that > obsoletes it. I’m happy to change the updates header info to “Updates: > draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis (once approved)" though if that makes things > crystal clear. >
The rfc6485bis draft is intended to clean up errors in RFC6485. That should progress. Implementations already comply with the corrected text. The bgpsec-algs draft is adding new algorithms to be used in new RPKI objects and in the bgpsec protocol. The bgpsec-algs draft should be updating the rfc6485bis document. As there's still work in progress here, there should be no problem with the order of publication. I can see that there are several references to RFC6485 in bgpsec-algs that will have to take the final publication of rfc6485bis draft into account, in order to clear up the relationships. --Sandy, speaking for the wg co-chairs
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
