Re: [sidr] New version draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol

[Matthew Lepinski <[e-mail]>]

Oh, one other thing:

If anyone on this list thinks that instead of referencing as-migration,
that we are better off merging as-migration into bgpsec-protocol, this
would be a great time to speak up.

 (That is, it is not too late to pull the solution from as-migration
directly into bgpsec-protocol, but if we are going to go down that road, we
should do it as soon as possible!)


On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Matthew Lepinski <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Wes,
>
> I agree that inserting a reference in bgpsec-protocol (and
> bgpsec-overview) and then publishing as-migration as part of the bgpsec
> document set (along with the router certificate profile, the algorithm
> document, etc) is a good way forward.
>
> I need to do a careful review of the latest version of as-migration (I
> really haven't looked at the -01). I will get to that before we meet in
> Toronto.
>
> Also, I am open to suggestions with regards to where to insert a reference
> to as-migration -- but I will try to suggestion for how to link the two
> documents in time for Toronto.
>
> - Matt Lepinski
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, George, Wes <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>   From: Matthew Lepinski <[e-mail]>
>> Date: Friday, July 4, 2014 at 6:16 PM
>> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: [sidr] New version draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol
>>
>>  I submitted a new version of the bgpsec protocol document. This
>> revision includes a fair number of editorial changes but does not include
>> any normative changes.
>>
>>  Now that the BGPSEC requirements document is essentially done, I look
>> forward to discussing the protocol document again in Toronto. In
>> particular, between now and the Toronto meeting I will write up (and send
>> to the list) a brief comparison between the requirements in the final
>> version of the reqs draft and what we deliver in the protocol document.
>>
>>  The only open issue in the protocol document that I am aware of is the
>> following:
>>
>>  [snip]
>>
>>  Matt -
>>
>>  One additional change I think is necessary is to add a reference to
>> ietf-sidr-as-migration. This is effectively an extension of the BGPSec
>> protocol that is contained in a separate document. If the BGPSec doc was
>> already done, I'd most likely be using the metadata of as-migration to
>> update RFCnnnn so that the link would exist from the BGPSec protocol doc in
>> addition to the normative reference to -protocol from as–migration, but in
>> the current form where it's trivial to update the -protocol draft, I think
>> that should instead be accomplished by a forward reference, and then the
>> two documents will simply be part of the group of interdependent docs that
>> get released for BGPSec (assuming of course that -as–migration passes LC).
>>
>>  That said, my quick scan of –protocol didn't reveal an obvious place to
>> insert that reference, so if you or others have ideas of where it should
>> go, I'm happy to contribute a few lines of wrapper text.
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Wes
>>
>>   Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I
>> have no control over it.
>>
>> -----------
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
>> proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
>> copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely
>> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you
>> are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that
>> any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to
>> the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and
>> may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
>> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of
>> this E-mail and any printout.
>>
>
>