Re: [sidr] BGPSec RFC status

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Geoff Huston" <[e-mail]>
To: "sidr" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:20 PM

> > On 14 Apr 2016, at 4:17 AM, Stephen Kent <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I didn't attend the IETF meeting, but I did listen to the Wednesday
SIDR session, at
> > which the issue was raised as to whether the BGPSec RFC should be
standards track
> > or experimental.
>
> I was in the room, but did not speak to this topic.
>
> > I believe standards track is the right approach here.
>
> I consulted the oracle of RFC2026 and read the following:
>
>    A Proposed Standard specification is generally stable, has resolved
>    known design choices, is believed to be well-understood, has
received
>    significant community review, and appears to enjoy enough community
>    interest to be considered valuable.  However, further experience
>    might result in a change or even retraction of the specification
>    before it advances.
>
> This seems to fit well, including the caveats at the end.

Geoff

I agree that Proposed Standard is the right, the obvious choice, but in
another context, it might matter that the oracle is dead, buried by
RFC7127

"  A Proposed Standard specification is stable, has resolved known
   design choices, has received significant community review, and
   appears to enjoy enough community interest to be considered valuable.

   Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
   required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
   Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable and will
   usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
   designation.

   The IESG may require implementation and/or operational experience
   prior to granting Proposed Standard status to a specification that
   materially affects the core Internet protocols or that specifies
   behavior that may have significant operational impact on the
   Internet.

   A Proposed Standard will have no known technical omissions with
   respect to the requirements placed upon it.  Proposed Standards are
   of such quality that implementations can be deployed in the Internet.
   However, as with all technical specifications, Proposed Standards may
   be revised if problems are found or better solutions are identified,
   when experiences with deploying implementations of such technologies
   at scale is gathered.
"

which I find a somewhat looser requirement and so unlikely to affect the
outcome of this discussion.

Tom Petch




>
> On the other hand:
>
>   The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification
that
>    is part of some research or development effort.  Such a
specification
>    is published for the general information of the Internet technical
>    community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
>    editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
>    adequate coordination with the standards process (see below).
>
> Which seems to fall short.
>
> The exercise of RFC publication of BGPSec is more than archival, and
the process
> has been much more than a cursory exercise of coordination with the
SIDR WG. While
> BGPSec may, or may not, enjoy ubiquitous deployment in tomorrow’s
Internet, that
> future uncertainty applies to most of the IETF’s work, and that
consideration
> should not preclude its publication as a Proposed Standard, as I
interpret RFC2026.
>
> Geoff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>