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

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

> 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.
> 
> 

i see no merit in reproducing text from another document.  i could refer
to it, but i prefer to add

7.  Routing Policy

   As BGPsec signed paths can not traverse non-BGPsec topology, partial
   BGPsec deployment forms islands of assured paths.  As islands grow to
   touch each other, they become larger islands.

randy