Re: [sidr] BGPSec RFC status

+1 to Roque's point.  Definitely standards track.

Thanks,
Sharon

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Roque Gagliano (rogaglia) <
rogaglia@cisco.com> wrote:

> +1 with Standard Track.
>
> The question could have been relevant six years ago and we may not have
> debated it that much then. Today, we are clearly beyond experimental draft
> definition and we do not want to stop people working on the topic.
>
> Roque
>
>
>
> On 14/04/16 22:20, "sidr on behalf of Geoff Huston" <sidr-bounces@ietf.org
> on behalf of gih@apnic.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >> On 14 Apr 2016, at 4:17 AM, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> 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.
> >
> >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 tomorrow¹s
> >Internet, that
> >future uncertainty applies to most of the IETF¹s work, and that
> >consideration
> >should not preclude its publication as a Proposed Standard, as I
> >interpret RFC2026.
> >
> >Geoff
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >sidr mailing list
> >sidr@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>
>

-- 
Sharon Goldberg
Computer Science, Boston University
http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe