Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun

[Matt Lepinski <[e-mail]>]

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
>