IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] BGPSec RFC status

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Wed, 13 April 2016 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388E712D943 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rCJsTor4bnQZ for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (x-bolt-wan.smeinc.net [209.135.219.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555B612D8EA for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (ronin.smetech.net [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC114F24061 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:36:08 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eNnkrvSlPCvP for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:21:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-108-51-128-219.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.51.128.219]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9D1F2401F for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:36:08 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <570E8D44.1080208@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:36:07 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BE65B202-367F-4888-BBDD-E642B4B875E9@vigilsec.com>
References: <570E8D44.1080208@bbn.com>
To: IETF SIDR <sidr@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/Ew-NzHbtY9Fts_qWKvzM-mlCm4E>
Subject: Re: [sidr] BGPSec RFC status
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:36:11 -0000

I didn't attend the IETF meeting because I as chairing another session in another room at the same time. During that session the issue was raised as to whether the BGPSec RFC should be standards track or experimental.  I strongly support publication on the standards track. There are already two interoperable implementations, so I think that all of the criteria for advancement on the standards track have been met before we even get published at the proposed standard.

I believe that publication as experimental will greatly delay deployment, which will already take a very long time.  Let’s mover forward on this journey and get some real experience.

Russ

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email