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

Randy,

> well, actually, the discussion in april was walking around many of the
> implications thereof.  it is hard to discuss "do we keep/replace
> AS[4]_PATH" as it is abstract and draws deep philosophical discourse
> with no hard handles on technical decision points.

I think you should remove the [4] from the discussion. 4 bytes ASN is mandatory for BGPSEC speakers. So, there should be no AS4_PATH attributes between BGPSEC routers to keep/replace.

Roque

> otoh, i would be really interested in hearing/discussing if anyone sees
> any show-stoppers to the current draft doing so.
> 
> i am amused that the current draft says, in the intro,
> 
>   2.  Every AS listed in the AS_Path attribute of the update explicitly
>       authorized the advertisement of the route to the subsequent AS in
>       the AS_Path.
> 
> when there is no bgpsec as_path. :)
> 
>> The absence of the AS_PATH did come up in discussing other topics (see
>> the minutes), but we did not discuss it directly.
> 
> see above
> 
>> (2) router private key provisioning.
>> 
>> In the interim in San Diego, there were requests (from operators) that
>> guidance to operators of how to provision a router with the needed
>> keys would be a good idea.  We had some discussion in the Paris
>> meeting of two drafts discussing provisioning the routers with their
>> needed private keys.  There's also been a recent flurry of discussion
>> on the list.
> 
> no comments on the new version of draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying-00.txt.
> would appreciate some now or we can ask for wglc.
> 
> there have been no comments on list to confed and aliasing.  may we call
> them done?
> 
> randy
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

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

Attachment: smime.p7s