I didn't attend the IETF meeting, but I did listen to the Wednesday SIDR
session, at
which the issue was raised as to whether the BGPSec RFC should be
standards track
or experimental.
I believe standards track is the right approach here. This document has been
viewed as standards track since we began work on it long ago. It is the
successor
to the origin validation standards, addressing the residual
vulnerabilities that
persist based on that use of the RPKI. From the perspective of promoting
adoption
it is critical that this remain a standards track document; router
vendors will
be unlikely to devote resources to design and implementation if BGPsec
is labeled
experimental. I agree that this is new technology, but I heard that we
already have
a couple of implementations already, and we may discourage others from
continuing to
work on BGPSec implementations if we downgrade the status of the RFC.
The design has
evolved to accommodate real-world routing deployment topics such as the
role of IXPs
and AS migration. In my long experience in the IETF experience, the
level of attention
to these an analogous details makes BGPsec a very solid candidate for
standards track
publication.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
