Re: [sidr] New version draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

WRT integrating the two specs … whatever is easier.

spt

On Jul 07, 2014, at 13:06, Matthew Lepinski <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Oh, one other thing:
> 
> If anyone on this list thinks that instead of referencing as-migration, that we are better off merging as-migration into bgpsec-protocol, this would be a great time to speak up.
> 
>  (That is, it is not too late to pull the solution from as-migration directly into bgpsec-protocol, but if we are going to go down that road, we should do it as soon as possible!)
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Matthew Lepinski <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Wes,
> 
> I agree that inserting a reference in bgpsec-protocol (and bgpsec-overview) and then publishing as-migration as part of the bgpsec document set (along with the router certificate profile, the algorithm document, etc) is a good way forward. 
> 
> I need to do a careful review of the latest version of as-migration (I really haven't looked at the -01). I will get to that before we meet in Toronto. 
> 
> Also, I am open to suggestions with regards to where to insert a reference to as-migration -- but I will try to suggestion for how to link the two documents in time for Toronto.
> 
> - Matt Lepinski
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, George, Wes <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> From: Matthew Lepinski <[e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, July 4, 2014 at 6:16 PM
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [sidr] New version draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol
> 
> I submitted a new version of the bgpsec protocol document. This revision includes a fair number of editorial changes but does not include any normative changes.
> 
> Now that the BGPSEC requirements document is essentially done, I look forward to discussing the protocol document again in Toronto. In particular, between now and the Toronto meeting I will write up (and send to the list) a brief comparison between the requirements in the final version of the reqs draft and what we deliver in the protocol document. 
> 
> The only open issue in the protocol document that I am aware of is the following:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Matt - 
> 
> One additional change I think is necessary is to add a reference to ietf-sidr-as-migration. This is effectively an extension of the BGPSec protocol that is contained in a separate document. If the BGPSec doc was already done, I'd most likely be using the metadata of as-migration to update RFCnnnn so that the link would exist from the BGPSec protocol doc in addition to the normative reference to -protocol from as–migration, but in the current form where it's trivial to update the -protocol draft, I think that should instead be accomplished by a forward reference, and then the two documents will simply be part of the group of interdependent docs that get released for BGPSec (assuming of course that -as–migration passes LC).
> 
> That said, my quick scan of –protocol didn't reveal an obvious place to insert that reference, so if you or others have ideas of where it should go, I'm happy to contribute a few lines of wrapper text. 
> 
> Thanks,
>  
> Wes
> 
> Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I have no control over it.
> -----------
> 
> 
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr