[sidr] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-16: (with COMMENT)

["Benoit Claise" <[e-mail]>]

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Happy to see an operational considerations document at the same time at
the protocol specifications, even if we know that "It is expected to
evolve as BGPsec is formalized and initially deployed."
Thanks Randy

Proposal: one extra section on migration/deployability
There is text in draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21

   How will migration from BGP to BGPsec look like?  What are the
   benefits for the first adopters?  Initially small groups of
   contiguous ASes would be doing BGPsec.  There would be possibly one
   or more such groups in different geographic regions of the global
   Internet.  Only the routes originated within each group and
   propagated within its borders would get the benefits of
cryptographic
   AS path protection.  As BGPsec adoption grows, each group grows in
   size and eventually they join together to form even larger BGPsec
   capable groups of contiguous ASes.  The benefit for early adopters
   starts with AS path security within the contiguous-AS regions
spanned
   by their respective groups.  Over time they would see those
   contiguous-AS regions grow much larger.