Re: [GROW] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-simple-leak-attack-bgpsec-no-help-03.txt

["Russ White" <[e-mail]>]

> I reviewed the mailing lists of all three WGs from November last year,
when
> this came up.
> and I was searching for a proposed methodology of defining requirements,
> proposing mechanisms and standardising one of more candidate
> technologies relating to the issue of path control of the propagation of
BGP
> announcements in order to allow BGP speakers to detect unintended
> announcements. My search of the list archives was unsuccessful.

That's because there wasn't ever an actual requirements gathering process.
The process has worked from solution to requirements, so no formal
requirements were ever drafted. We made a bold attempt in another WG, but
those attempts were effectively shut down because the solution --S-BGP (aka
BGPSEC)-- was already in hand, and no other solutions were even seriously
considered.

Doesn't matter whether or not BGP-SEC meets "requirements," it's a solution
going someplace to happen (or not, as the case might be).

:-)

Russ