Re: [Bgp-autoconf] bgp auto configuration -01 update after interim discussion

Linda,

Warren crafted this text.  Let's see what his thinking here is.

-- Jeff

> On Jun 24, 2021, at 1:02 PM, Linda Dunbar <ldunbar@futurewei.com> wrote:
> 
> The discussion can be more productive if we can explicitly name the  operational trust models described in the Section 3.6.  
> 
> For example: 
> 
> Trusted Physical Protection:  refers to DCs that  have very strict physical protection of the datacenter, and  their deployment model assumes that anything which plugs into devices in the datacenter is, by definition, trusted.  
> 
> Not-Fully-trusted:
> a) Using BGP Autoconf to perform validation of data center fabric: ...
> b) 
> 
> It doesn't make much sense to compare the Auto configuration for the "Trusted Physical Protection" DC with the Auto-config for a) or b) under the Not-Fully-Trusted.
> 
> My two cents, 
> 
> Linda Dunbar
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bgp-autoconf <bgp-autoconf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Haas
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 3:32 PM
> To: bgp-autoconf@ietf.org
> Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: [Bgp-autoconf] bgp auto configuration -01 update after interim discussion
> 
> Please find attached proposed updates to the auto-configuration Internet-Draft that attempts to address the consensus discussion at this week's IDR interim for auto configuration.
> 
> I'd like to publish this on Friday.  Your review is greatly appreciated.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
> -- 
> Bgp-autoconf mailing list
> Bgp-autoconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bgp-autoconf