Re: [sidr] suggested amendment to draft-ymbk-bgpsec-reqs

[Stephen Kent <[e-mail]>]

At 1:24 PM -0400 4/2/11, Russ White wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
>  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
>  boundary="------------enig5992EC3DE2163EED1CCB39EC"
>
>
>>  As it stands now, BGPSEC is opt-in.    So it seems that clearly
>>  documenting these issues is more operative than make absolute
>>  requirements about them.
>
>Does this mean BGPSEC is not designated as a standards track document?
>how can a security system actually work if it's "opt in?" It sounds like
>this is an area that needs some discussion around it.
>
>:-)
>
>Russ

A standards track protocol is usually mandatory to implement, but using
it is a local context determination.  I expect that's what was meant by opt-in.

Steve