Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-01.txt

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Tue, 01 November 2011 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 53EF91F0C6C for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 05:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.591
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FnCzsVjE+5XO for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 05:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECAFB1F0C59 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 05:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1RLDa8-000AOG-Sg; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 12:36:45 +0000
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:36:43 +0100
Message-ID: <m239e89fz8.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
In-Reply-To: <DCC302FAA9FE5F4BBA4DCAD465693779145173FFD6@PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com>
References: <20111019224523.16220.18338.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <DCC302FAA9FE5F4BBA4DCAD465693779145173FA64@PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com> <m2mxcgakmk.wl%randy@psg.com> <DCC302FAA9FE5F4BBA4DCAD465693779145173FFD6@PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: "sidr@ietf.org" <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-01.txt
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 12:36:46 -0000

>>> Bgpsec-reqs 3.4 provides a list of operational considerations to
>>> discuss. Would probably make sense to ensure that the document covers
>>> all of the listed items, perhaps even using those items as section
>>> headings for continuity's sake.
>>
>> probably more appropriate in the protocol document, or an adjunct to it
>>
> [WEG]] Not certain I understand. This is an operational considerations document, and those are listed as operational considerations. Why would that not be appropriate? How are you making the distinction between what is and is not appropriate?

             Security Requirements for BGP Path Validation
                     draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-reqs-01

Abstract

   This document describes requirements for a future BGP security
   protocol design
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

randy