Re: [sidr] request for agenda items for interim meeting 6 Jun

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

> (1) AS_PATH
> 
> There was one agenda topic that we never directly addressed at the 30
> Apr meeting.  That topic was the absence of the AS_PATH attribute from
> the bgpsec protocol.  (The info normally contained in the AS_PATH is
> contained in the bgpsec attributes.)

well, actually, the discussion in april was walking around many of the
implications thereof.  it is hard to discuss "do we keep/replace
AS[4]_PATH" as it is abstract and draws deep philosophical discourse
with no hard handles on technical decision points.

otoh, i would be really interested in hearing/discussing if anyone sees
any show-stoppers to the current draft doing so.

i am amused that the current draft says, in the intro,

   2.  Every AS listed in the AS_Path attribute of the update explicitly
       authorized the advertisement of the route to the subsequent AS in
       the AS_Path.

when there is no bgpsec as_path. :)

> The absence of the AS_PATH did come up in discussing other topics (see
> the minutes), but we did not discuss it directly.

see above

> (2) router private key provisioning.
> 
> In the interim in San Diego, there were requests (from operators) that
> guidance to operators of how to provision a router with the needed
> keys would be a good idea.  We had some discussion in the Paris
> meeting of two drafts discussing provisioning the routers with their
> needed private keys.  There's also been a recent flurry of discussion
> on the list.

no comments on the new version of draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying-00.txt.
would appreciate some now or we can ask for wglc.

there have been no comments on list to confed and aliasing.  may we call
them done?

randy