Re: [sidr] draft-sriram-bgpsec-design-choices-00 -- IXP and Route Server

["Chris Hall" <[e-mail]>]

Sriram, Kotikalapudi wrote (on 09-Jul-2011 at 14:30 +0100):
> Chris Hall wrote:
....
> >Strictly entre nous, I don't get a strong sense from the text that
> >entering into such an arrangement is an obvious and foolish mistake
> :-}
....
> Having said that, I respect Randy's viewpoint (and yours -- seems
> you are in agreement).

I was mostly paraphrasing the opinion which had been put to me quite
strongly.

>From where I sit, I would happily trust, say, the LINX.  But I
entirely take the point that a better system would not require me to
depend entirely on trust; and someone new to the LINX might prefer not
to.

....
> We can revise Section 6.6 to put greater emphasis on the "cons" part
> of it.

I think that would be a most reasonable thing to do.

Particularly, from the RS perspective, because Proxy Signing is
(currently) how a Transparent BGPSEC RS might be implemented.  The
cons would be the basis for a case for some other solution, in the
BGPSEC protocol, or elsewhere. 

Chris